IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


,J   |3.2 


III 


2.5 


22 


m  '""^ 


m 


1.4 


1.6 


Photographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


'^' 


4^ 


\ 


^v 


k 


k 


:\ 


\ 


<6 


V 


-f> 


<^ 


^^L 


# 


23  west  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14580 

(716)  873-4S03 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canactian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions 


Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


1980 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


□ 


n 


n 


n 


n 


D 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 


I      I    Covers  damaged/ 


Couverture  endommagde 


Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaurie  et/ou  peliiculde 


I      I    Cover  title  missing/ 


Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 


I      I    Coloured  maps/ 


Cartes  gdographiques  en  couleur 


Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 


I      I    Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 


Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material/ 
Reli6  ^yec  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  reliure  serr6e  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  int^rieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajoutdes 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  6tait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  6t6  filmies. 

Additional  comn.«  nts:/ 
Commentaires  suppldmentaires; 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  6ti  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-Atre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  methods  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiquis  ci-dessous. 


I      I   Coloured  pages/ 


D 
D 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  film6  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqud  ci-dessous. 


Pages  de  couleur 

Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagies 

Pages  restored  and/oi 

Pages  restaur6es  et/ou  pelliculdes 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxei 
Pages  d6color6es,  tachet^es  ou  piqudes 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  d6tach6es 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 

Quality  of  prir 

Quality  indgale  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  materit 
Comprend  du  materiel  suppl^mentaire 


I  I  Pages  damaged/ 

I  I  Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 

r~|  Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 

I  I  Pages  detached/ 

I  I  Showthrough/ 

I  I  Quality  of  print  varies/ 

I  I  Includes  supplementary  material/ 


Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponible 

Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc..  ont  6t6  filmies  d  nouveau  de  fapon  d 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


10X 

14X 

18X 

22X 

26X 

30X 

J 

12X 

16X 

20X 

24X 

28X 

?2X 

The  copy  filmed  here  has  been  reproduced  tharfks 
to  the  generosity  of: 

Nationai  Library  of  Canada 


L'exemplaire  filmi  fut  reproduit  grAce  A  la 
gAnirositd  de: 

Bibliothdque  nationale  du  Canada 


The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  tho  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Les  images  sulvantes  ont  6t6  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
de  la  nettet6  de  l'exemplaire  film6,  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprim6e  sont  filmis  en  commenpant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
derniire  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  selon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  film6s  en  commenpant  par  la 
premiere  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  nar 
la  derniAre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  —^  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 


Un  des  symboles  suiwants  apparaitra  sur  la 
dernidre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbole  — ^  signifie  "A  SUIVRE",  le 
symbole  V  signifie  "FIN". 


Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  dtre 
filmds  d  des  taux  de  reduction  diff^rents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  dtre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  cliche,  il  est  film6  d  pertir 
de  I'angle  sup^rieur  gauche,  de  gauche  A  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  ndcessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mdthode. 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

i»a 


/3f 


THB 


LAW  OF  HOTEL  LIFE 


OR   TUB 


Elt 


mrongs  and  Rights  of  tiost 


I' 


and  muesi 


BT 


K.  VASHOX  ROGERS  Jr. 

Of  Osgoode  riall,   B^n7stcr-at-Law 


SAN  FRANCISCO- 

SUMxVER  WHITiXEr  AND  COMPANY 

BOSTON:   HOUGHTON,  OSGOOD  &  CO        " 
©he  Biucrsido  )i>,;c88,  (j;ambr,i<l3o. 
1879. 


6/  31"?  o 


I 


Copyri;^ht  1S79, 


UIT.VKY  Sc  Co. 


Clvj 


/f 


REFACE. 


The  autlior  knows  as  well  as  did  old  Burton  that 
"  hooks  arc  so  j)lentifiil  that  they  serve  to  put  under 
pies,  to  l:ij)  spice  in,  and  keep  roast  meat  from  hurn- 
ing, "  yet  he  ventures  to  offer  another  volume  to 
the  puhlio,  trusting  that  some  men's  fancies  will 
incline  towards  and  approve  of  it;  for  '' writings  are 
so  many  dishes,  readers  guests,  hooks  like  beauty — 
that  which  one  admires  another  rejects."  He  thinks 
he  can  say,  in  the  words  of  Democritus  Junior,  that 
"as  a  good  housewife  out  of  divers  fleeces  weaves 
one  i)iecc  of  clotli,  a  bee  gathers  wax  and  honey 
out  of  many  flowers,  and  makes  a  new  bundle  of 
all,  I  have  laboriously  collected  this  cento  out  of 
divers  authors,  and  that  sine  injuria.  I  cite  and 
quote  mine  authors." 

This  volume  was  written  at  the  sucffjestion  of  the 
Publishers,  as  a  companion  to  "The  Wrongs  and 
Rights  of  a  Traveller,"  and  is  now  committed  to 
the  tender  mercies  of  general  readers,  and  to  the 
microscopic  eyes  of  the  critics  who  know  every- 
thing. Doubtless  mistakes  will  be  found;  )>ut  if 
every  one  knew  the  law  who  thinks  he  does,  law- 
yers would  starve, 

R.  V.  II.  Jr. 

Kingston^  Ont.^  Jlarch^  1870. 

[V] 


f 


p 


ONTENTS. 


I. 

II. 
III. 
IV. 

V. 

VI. 

VII. 

viir. 

IX. 

X. 

XI. 

Xll. 


A  CoiniON  L\N  AND  INXKEEPEB,  "         -         -  1 

City  House  axd  Manners, j^ 

Accidents,  IIooms,  Dogs, gj 

GUEST.S,  AVageks,  Games, gg 

Safes  and  Baggage, -^^ 

FiiiE,  Hats,  and  IKtrglars, 97 

Horses  and  Stables,  jj^ 

What  is  a  Lien  ? ^3^, 

Duties  of  a  Bo.uiDiNG-IIousE  ICeeper,  -  -  152 
More  ahout  Boarding-House  Keepers,  -  -  loo 
Charms  of  Furnished  Ap.uit^iexts,  -  .  173 
Notice  to  Quit  and  Turning  Out,       -       -       .  139 


:| 


CvU] 


I 


'4 


ClFAPTKIl    T. 


A  COMMOX  INX  ANh  IXNKKEPER. 


The  lust  kiss  was  ^/wcn — iho  last  oinl»ra(;e  over 


<1, 


(1  a  sto 


>f  1) 


ill 


<l  laiiLiliti 


(1 


and,  aiMKl  a  storm  ot  Jiiirraiis  ana  laiiL^inor  and  a 
liailstorm  of  old  slipiHM's  and  uncookiMl  rico,  we 
(lashed  away  from  my  two-hours'  bride's  father's 
country  mansion  in  ihe  new  family  carriage,  on  our 
wcddini^  tour.  The  prorj^rammo  was  that  we  wore 
to  stay  at  the  little  village  of  Blank  that  night,  aTid 
on  the  morrow  wo  expected  to  reach  the  city  of 
Noname,  where  we  would  he  able  to  find  convey- 
ances more  in  accord  with  the  requirements  of  tho 
last  quarter  of  tho  niiu'tecnth  century  of  grace 
than  a  carriage  and  pair. 

Arm  in  arm  and  hand  in  hand  we  sat  during  the 
long,  bright  June  afternoon,  as  the  ]>rancing  grays 
liurried  us  along  the  country  roads — now  besido 
grassy  meads,  now  beneath  o'erhanging  forest  trees, 
then  up  hill,  next  down  dale,  while  little  squirrels 
raced  along  beside  us  on  the  fence  tojts,  (»r  littlo 
Btreamlets  dashed  along  near  by,  bubl'Mig,  foam- 
ing, roaring  and  sparkling  in  the  sheen  of  tho 
merry  sunshine,  and  the  broad  fans  of  insect  an- 
gels gently  waved  o\er  their  golden  disks  as  they 
floated  i)ast;  all  nature,  animate  and  inanimate, 
Bmiling  merrily  upon  us,  as  if  quite  conscious  who 
and  what  wo  were.  But  little  did  wo  note  tho 
beauties  of  sky  or  field,  cot  or  hamlet,  bird  or 
I.  ri3 


A  COMMON  r<rs  AXD    INNKEEPER. 


li 


flower,  for  W!is  it  not  our  first  clrivo  since  the  niys« 
lie  word  of  the  wliite-robed  minister  of  the  Clmrch 
had  made  of  us  twain  one  flesli  ?  The  beauties  of 
the  otlier's  face  and  disposition  al)S()rhed  tlie  con- 
templation of  eaeli  of  us.  Once  or  twice,  indeed, 
I  felt  inclined  to  make  a  remark  or  two  anent  the 
fields  we  passed;  but  rememberinL^  that  I  knew  not 
a  carrot  from  a  parsni}),  until  it  was  cooked,  or 
wheat  from  oats,  except  in  the  well-known  forms  of 
bread  and  jiorridge,  and  not  wishing  to  be  like  Lord 
Erskine,  who,  on  coming  to  a  finely  cultivated  field 
of  wheat,  called  it  "  a  beautiful  piece  of  lavender," 
I  refrained. 


Love  in  itself  is  vory  good, 
But  'tis  by  no  means  solid  food; 
And  ere  our  first  day's  drive  was  o'er, 
1  found  wu  wanted  something  more. 


So  when  at  last,  as  the  shadows  began  to  lengthen 
and  still  evening  drew  on,  we  esjued  in  the  vnlley 
beneath  us  the  village  in  which  was  our  intended 
resting  ])lace,  I  exclaimed  : 

"Ah  !  there's  our  inn  at  last !  " 

"  At  last !  so  soon  wearied  of  my  company !  " 
chid  my  bride,  in  gentle  tones.  "  But  why  do  peo- 
]Aq  talk  of  a  village  'inn'  and  a  city  'hotel'? 
What  is  the  difference  between  a  liotel  and  an 
inn?" 

"  There  is  no  real  difference,"  I  rej)lied,  glad  to 
have  the  subject  changed  from  the  one  Mrs.  Law- 
yer had  first  started.  "  The  distinction  is  but  one 
of  name,  for  ar  hotel  is  but  a  common  inn   on  a 


A  C05DI0N  IXN"  AND    INNKEEPER. 


8 


grander  sc.ilo.^      Inn,  tavern,  and  hotel  are  synony 


nious  terms 


"2 


"  What  do  the  words  roallv  mean  ? 


?' 


"  Have  you  forgotten  all  your  French  ?  Tlio 
word  '  liotel '  is  derived  from  the  French  liotd^  (for 
liostel,)  and  originally  meant  a  }»alace,  or  residence 
for  Inrds  and  great  personages,  and  lias,  on  that 
account  no  doubt,  been  retained  to  distinguish  the 
mor 


•e  respectahle  liouses  of  entertainment." 
"  Well,  what  is  the  derivation  of  'inn'?"  qucr- 


icd 


my  wi 


fe. 


*'I  was  just  going  to  say  that  tliat  is  rather  ob- 
Bcure,  but  is  probably  akin  to  a  Chaldaic  word 
meaning  '  to  i)itcli  a  tent,'  and  is  applicable  to  all 
liouses  of  entertainment.'^  Inns  there  were  in  the 
far  distant  East  thirty-five  centuries  and  more  be- 
fore you  apj)eared  to  grace  this  mundane  sphere  ;4 
although,  when  the  i)atriarch  Jacob  went  t«)  visit 
his  pretty  cousins,  he  was  n(»t  fortunate  enough  to 
find  one,  and  had  to  make  his  bed  on  the  ground, 
taking  a  stone  for  his  pillow." 

"And  very  famous  in  after  years  did  iliat  just 
mentioned  pillow  become,"  said  Mrs.  L.,  intcrrupt- 
ingly.  "And  much  pain  and  grief,  as  well  as  glory 
and  renown,  has  it  brought  to  th(»se  who  have  nsed 
it." 

"What  meanest  thou?"  in  my  turn  queried  I. 

1  Taylor  r.  Monnot,  4  Ducr,  11^;  Jonos  r.  Osborn,  2  Chit.  486. 

2  People  V.  Jouos,  54  X.  Y.  (Barb.)  oil;  St.  Loui3  v.  Siegrist, 
4t)  ISIo.  5«j;5. 

8  Wharton's  Law  of  Innkeepers,  8. 
*Geu.  xlii:27. 


ft  A  COitMON  INN  AND    INNKEEPER. 

"  Don't  you  know  that  npon  that  stone  the  sov- 
ereigns of  England  have  been  crowned  ever  since 
the  first  Edward  stole  it  from  the  Scots,  who  had 
taken  it  from  the  Irish,  who  doubtless  had  come 
honestly  by  it,  and  that  it  now  forms  one  of  the 
wonders  and  glories  of  Westminster  Abbey  ?" 

"  Indeed ! "  I  remarked,  with  an  inflection  in  my 
voice  signifying  doubt. 

"I  wonder  who  kept  the  first  hotel,  and  what  it 
was  like,"  quoth  my  lady. 

"  History  is  silent  on  both  points,"  I  replied. 
"But  doubtless  the  early  ones  were  little  more  than 
sheds  beside  a  spring  or  well,  where  the  temporary 
lodger,  worn  and  dirty,  could  draw  forth  his  ham 
sandwich  from  an  antediluvian  carpet-bag,  eat  it  at 
his  leisure,  wash  it  down  with  pure  water,  curl  him- 
self up  in  a  corner,  and,  undisturbed  by  the  thought 
of  having  to  rise  before  daylight  to  catcii  the  ex- 
press, sleep — while  tlio  other  denizens  of  the  cabin 
took  their  evening  meal  at  his  expense." 

"But  no  one  could  make  much  out  of  such  a 
place,"  urged  Mrs.  Lawyer. 

"  Quito  correct.  Boniface,  in  those  days,  con- 
tented himself  with  an  iron  coin,  a  piece  of  leather 
stamped  with  the  image  of  a  cow,  or  some  such 
primitive  representative  of  the  circulating  me- 
dium." 

*'  Times  are  changed  since  then,"  remarked  my 
companion. 

"  What  else  could  you  expect  ?  Are  you  a  total 
disbeliever  in  the  Darwinian  theory  of  develop- 
ment ?    Inns  and  hotels,  in  their  history,  are  excel- 


1-* 

f 


:W 


I 


A  COMMOTT  nnT  AIH)    INNKEEPEE. 


6 


a 


vMB' 


lent  examples  of  the  truth  of  that  hypothesis.  Pro- 
toplasm maturing  into  perfect  liumanity  is  as  noth- 
ing to  them.  See  how,  through  many  gradations,  the 
jjrimeval  well  has  become  the  well-stocked  bar-room 
of  to-day ;  the  antique  hovel  is  now  the  luxu- 
rious Windsor,  the  resplendent  Palace,  the  Grand 
Hotel  du  Louvre;  the  uncouth  barbarian,  who 
showed  to  each  comer  his  own  proper  corner  to  lie 
in,  has  blossomed  into  the  smiling  and  gentlemanly 
proprietor  or  clerk,  who  greets  you  as  a  man  and  a 
brother ;  the  simple  charge  of  a  i)ieco  of  iron  or 
brass  for  bed  and  board  (then  synonymous)  has 
grown  into  an  elaborate  bill,  which  requires  ducats, 
or  sovereigns,  or  eagles  to  liquidate.  But  further 
discussion  on  this  interesting  question  must  be  de- 
ferred to  some  future  day,  for  here  we  are,"  I 
added,  as  we  halted  at  "The  Farmer's  Home." 

"I  don't  believe  that  Joseph's  brethren  ever 
stopped  at  a  more  miserable  looking  caravansary," 
said  my  wife,  in  tones  in  which  contentment  was 
not  greatly  marked.  "  Are  you  quite  sure  that  this 
is  the  inn?    It  has  no  sign." 

"  That  fact  is  of  no  moment,"  I  hastened  to  re- 
ply. "  A  sign  is  not  an  essential,  although  it  is 
evidence  of  an  inn.  Every  one  who  makes  it  his 
business  to  entertain  travelers,  and  provide  lodg- 
ings and  necessaries  for  them,  their  attendants,  and 
horses,  is  a  common  innkeeper,  whether  a  sign 
swings  before  the  door,  or  no."  ^ 

"  And  a  common  enough  innkeeper  he  looks,  in  all 


iBac.  Abr.  lunk.  B;  Parker  v.  Flint,  13  Mod.  235;  Dickin^ 
Bon  f.  Eodfiers,  4  Humph.  (Tenn.)  179. 


G  A  COMMON  INN  AND    INNKEEPER. 

conscience,'*  Bakl  Mrs.  Lawyer,  as  mine  host  of  tho 
signless  inn  a])pearetl  upon  the  stoop  to  receive  hia 
guests.  Coatless  lie  was,  waistcoat  he  had  none ; 
the  rim  of  his  hat  glistened  briglitly  in  tlie  decline 
ing  sun,  as  if  generations  of  snails  had  made  it 
their  favorite  promenade ;  his  legs,  or  the  logs  of 
his  pantaloons,  were  not  pairs — they  differed  so 
much  in  length  ;  his  boots  knew  not  the  glories  of 
Day  &  Martin  ;  his  face  had  hydropliobia,  so  long 
was  it  since  it  had  touched  water ;  and  "  wildly 
tossed  from  cheek  to  chin  the  tumbling  cataract  of 
his  beard." 

With  the  grace  of  a  bear  and  the  case  of  a  bull  in 
a  china-shop,  he  ushered  us  into  the  parlor,  with  its 
yellow  floor,  its  central  square  of  rag-carpet,  its 
rickety  table,  its  antique  sampler  and  gorgeous 
pictures  on  the  walls,  its  festoons  of  colored  paper 
depending  from  the  ceiling,  its  flies  buzzing  on  the 
window-panes.  Sad  were  the  glances  we  ex- 
champed  when  for  a  minute  wo  were  left  in  this 
elegant  boudoir. 

"  What  a  nuisance  that  the  other  inn  was  burnt 
down  last  week,  and  that  there  is  none  but  this  mis- 
erable apology  for  one  within  thirty  miles,"  I 
growled. 

"'Tis  but  for  a  night,"  returned  my  wife,  in  con- 
Bolatory  tones.  "  It  is  only  what  we  might  have 
expected,  for  saith  not  the  poet : 


•  Inns  are  naaty,  dusty,  fusty, 
Both  with  smoko  and  rubbish  musty'  ?'* 

Soon   we  mounted   the  groaning  stairs  to  our 


A  COMMON"  INlf  AND    rNNKEEPER.  7 

dorraitory,  and  found  the  liouso  to  l>e  a.  veritable 

"  Kind  of  old  Hobgoblin  Hall, 
Now  somoNvlmt  fallen  to  decay, 
With  weather  stains  upon  tlio  wall, 
And  stairways  worn,  and  crazy  doors, 
And  creaking  and  uneven  floors, 
And  bedrooms  dirty,  bare,  and  small." 

The  room  assigned  to  us  might  have  been  smaller, 
the  furniture  might  have  been  cheaper  and  older-— 
jwssibly ;  but  to  have  conceived  my  blooming  bride 
in  a  more  unsuitable  j)luce — impossible.  I  asked  for 
better  accommodation ;  Boniface  shook  his  head 
solemnly,  (I  thought  I  heard  his  fe>v  brains  rattle 
in  his  great  stupid  skull)  and  muttered  that  it  was 
the  best  he  had,  and  if  wo  did  not  like  it  wc  might 
leave  and  look  elsewhere. 

"  We  must  make  the  best  of  it,  my  dear.  The 
landlord  is  only  bound  to  provide  reasonable  and 
proper  accommodation,  even  if  there  were  better  in 
the  house ;  he  need  not  give  his  guests  the  preciso 
rooms  they  may  select."  ^ 

Wc  resolved  to  display  the  Christian  grace  oi 
resignation. 

As  speedily  as  possible  we  arranged  our  toilets 
and  descended  once  more  to  the  lower  regions, 
with  the  faint  hope  that  the  dining-room  might  be 
better  furnished  with  the  good  things  of  this  life 
than  either  the  parlor  or  bed-room.  Sad  to  relate, 
the  fates  were  still  against  us  :  wc  found,  on  enter- 

1  Fell  V.  Knight,  8  Mees.  &  W.  2G9;  Doyle  v.  Walker,  20 
Q.  B.  (Ont.)502. 


A  COMMON  INN  AND    INNKEEPEE. 


ing  tho  salle  d,  manger,  n.  couplo  of  small  tables  put 
together  in  tho  middle  of  the  room,  covered  with 
three  or  four  cloths  of  different  aires  and  dates  of 
washing,  and  arranged  as  much  like  one  as  the  cir- 
cumstanceS  of  the  case  would  allow.  Upon  these 
Avcre  laid  knives  and  forks;  some  of  the  knife-hand- 
les were  green,  others  red,  and  a  few  yellow,  and  as 
all  tho  forks  were  black,  the  combination  of  colors 
was  exceedingly  striking.  Soon  the  rest  of  tho 
paraphernalia  and  tho  comestibles  appeared,  and 
then  Josh  Billings'  descrij^tion  became  strictly  ap- 
plicable: "Tea  tew  kold  tew  melt  butter;  frido 
potatoze  which  resembled  the  chips  a  tew-inch 
augur  makes  in  its  journey  thru  an  oke  log ;  bread 
solid;  bicfstake  about  az  thick  as  blister  j^laster, 
and  az  tough  as  a  hound's  ear;  table  kovered  with 
plates ;  a  few  scared-tew-death  pickles  on  one  of 
them,  and  6  fly-indorsed  crackers  on  another;  a 
pewterunktoon  kaster,  with  3  bottles  in  it — one 
without  any  mustard,  and  one  with  tew  inches  of 
drowned  flies  and  vinegar  in  it." 

Fortunately,  long  abstinence  came  to  our  aid, 
and  hunger,  which  covers  a  multitude  of  sins  in 
cookery  and  "  dishing  up,"  was  present,  and.  our 
manducatory  powers  were  good ;  so  wo  managed 
to  supply  tho  cravings  of  the  inner  man  to  some 
extent. 

"  What  is  this  ?  "  I  asked  of  tho  landlord,  as  he 
handed  me  a  most  suspicious  looking  fluid. 

"  It's  bean  soup,"  he  gruflly  replied. 

"Never  mind  what  it's  been — what  is  it  now?" 
I  asked  a  second  time.     A  smile  from  my  wife 


A  COMMON  INN  AND    INNKEEPER. 


9 


revealed  to  inc  my  error,  and  I  saved  the  astonished 
man  the  necessity  of  a  rei)ly. 

At  the  taV)lo  wc  were  joined  by  an  acqiiaintanco, 
who  informed  me  tliat  he  had  great  difficulty  in 
obtaining  admission  to  the  house,  as  the  innkeeper 
had  a  <},rudge  against  him. 

"No  matter  what  personal  objection  a  host  may 
have,  he  cainiot  refuse  to  receive  a  guest.  Every 
one  who  opens  an  inn  by  the  wayside,  and  jirofesses 
to  exercise  the  business  and  employment  of  a  com- 
mon innkeeper,  is  bound  to  afford  such  shelter  and 
accommodation  as  lie  possesses  to  all  travelers  who 
apj)ly  tl' ere  for,  and  tender,  or  are  able  to  jiay,  tho 
customary  charges,"  ^  I  remarked. 

"  J]ut  surely  one  is  not  bound  to  take  the  trouble 
to  make  an  actual  tender?"  questioned  my  friend. 

"  I  am  not  quite  so  sure  on  that  point,"  I  replied. 
"  Coleridge,  J.,  once  said  that  it  is  the  custom  so 
universal  with  innkeepers  to  trust  that  a  person 
will  pay  before  he  leaves  the  inn,  that  it  cannot 
be  necessary  for  a  guest  to  tender  money  before  he 
enters.^  But,  in  a  subsequent  case.  Lord  Abinger 
said  that  he  could  not  agree  with  Coleridge's  opin- 
ion,^ and  three  other  judges  concurred  with  Abinger, 
although  the  court  was  not  called  upon  to  decide 
the  matter.  In  fact,  the  point  has  never  been  defi- 
nitely settled  in  England.     Text-writers,  however, 

1  Taylor  i',  Huraplireys,  SO  Law  J.  2G2;  AVatson  v.  Cross,  2 
Duval,  (Ivy.)  147;  Newton  v.  Trigg,  1  Show.  27G;  Common«. 
wealth  V.  Mitchell,  1  Phil.  (Pa.)  G3. 

2  Rex  V.  Ivcns,  7  Car.  &  P.  213. 

8  Fell  V.  Knight,  8  Mees.  &  \V.  270. 


10 


A  COMMON  I^'N  AND    INNTCEEPER. 


|!f 


»       if         * 


I.  : 


i 
I 


i     * 


think  an  offer  to  pay  requisite,!  and  it  has  been  so 
held  in  Canada."  2 

"  But  what,"  said  my  friend,  "  if  the  proprietor 
is  rude  enough  to  slam  the  door  in  your  face,  and 
you  cannot  see  even  an  open  window?" 

"  Oh,  in  that  case  even  Abinger  would  dispense 
with  a  tender."  3 

"  It  seems  hard  that  a  man  must  admit  every  one 
into  his  house,  whether  he  wishes  or  no,"  said  my 
wife. 

"  Reflect,  my  dear,"  I  replied,  "  that  if  an  inn- 
keeper was  allowed  to  choose  his  guests  and  re- 
ceive only  those  whom  lie  saw  fit,  unfortunate 
travelers,  although  able  and  willing  to  pay  for  en- 
tertainment, might  be  compelled,  through  the  mere 
caprice  of  the  innkeeper,  to  wander  about  without 
shelter,  exposed  to  the  heats  of  summer,  the  rains 
of  autumn,  the  snows  of  winter,  or  the  winds  of 


I  or. 


?» 


sprm^. 

"Do  you  mean  to  say  that  improper  persons 
must  be  received  ?  " 

"  Oh  dear  no  !  A  traveler  who  behaves  in  a  dis- 
orderly or  improper  manner  may  be  refused  admis- 
sion,* and  so  may  one  who  has  a  contagious  disease, 
or  is  drunk.^  And,  of  course,  if  there  is  no  room, 
admission  mav  be  refused.*^    But  it  will  not  do  for 

V 

1  Wharton,  p.  78. 

2  Doylo  V.  Walker,  2G  Q.  B.  (Ont.)  502. 
8  Fell  V.  Kniglit,  supra. 

*  Howell  V.  Jackson,  G  Car.  &  P.  742;  Moriarty  v.  Brooks, 
Ibid.  G34. 
c  Markham  v.  Brown,  8  N".  II.  523;  Fell  v.  Knight,  supra, 
6  Ilex  V.  Ivens,  supra;  Fell  v.  Knight,  supra. 


A  COMMON  INN"  AND    INNKEEPER. 


n 


m 

-a' 


the  publican  to  say  that  lie  lias  no  room,  if  such 
statement  be  false;  for  that  venerable  authority, 
Rolle,  says:  *  Si  un  hotelier  refuse  un  guest  sur 
pretense  que  son  maison  est  pleine  de  guests,  si  est 
soit  faux,  action  sur  le  case  git.' "  ^ 

"You  don't  say  sol"  said  my  friend,  aghast  at 
the  jargon.     I  continued  : 

"And  a  publican  must  not  knowingly  allow 
thieves,  or  reputed  thieves,  to  meet  in  his  house, 
however  lawful  or  laudable  their  object  may  be."^ 

"  Su])pose  they  wanted  to  hold  a  prayer-meeting, 
what  then?"  asked  my  wife. 

"I  cannot  say  how  that  would  be;  but  a  friendly 
meeting  for  collection  of  funds  was  objected  to. 
Kor  should  he  allow  a  policeman,  while  on  duty, 
to  remain  on  his  premises,  except  in  the  execution 
,  of  that  duty.  3  And  he  may  prohibit  the  entry  of 
one  whose  misconduct  or  filthy  condition  would 
Bubjcct  his  guests  to  annoyance.*  And  I  remember 
reading  that  Mrs.  WoodhuU  and  Miss  Claflin  werv 
turned  away  from  a  New  York  hotel  on  the  ground 
of  their  want  of  character." 

"Wlii.t  if   the  poor  hotel-keeper  is  sick?"   in 
quired  Mrs.  Lawyer. 

"Neither  illness,  nor  insanity,  nor  lunacy,  nor 
idiocy,  nor  hypochondriacism,  nor  hypochondriasis, 
nor  vapors,  nor  absence,  nor  intended  absence,  can 


■pi 
I 


1  Holl.  Ahr.  3  F;  AVliite's  Case,  Dyer,  158. 

*  Marshall  v.  Fox,  Law  Hep.  G  Q.  B.  370;  Markbam  v.  Brown, 
8X.n.523. 

8  JSIullins  V.  Collins,  43  Law  J.  M.  C,  G7. 

*  ^L1rkham  v.  Brown,  supra;  Piukerton  v.  Woodward,  33 
Cal.  557. 


}2 


A  COMMON  INN  AND    I^-,KEEPEE, 


avail  the  laiullonl  as  an  excuse  for  refusing  adml*. 
sion.l  Allbough  the  illness  or  desertitjii  of  his 
servants,  if  lie  has  not  been  ablo  to  replace  theiji, 
might  be  an  excuse;  and  perchance  liis  own  in- 
fancy, and  perchance  not."  2 

■  "  What  can  you  do  if  lie  refuses  to  let  you  in?" 
asked  my  friend,  "lireak  oi)en  the  door?" 
'  "No,  that  might  lead  to  a  breach  of  the  peace. 
You  may  cither  sue  him  for  damages,  or  have  him 
indicted  and  fined;  and  it  is  also  said  in  England 
that  the  constable  of  the  town,  if  his  assistance  is 
invoked,  may  force  the  recalcitrant  publican  to  re- 
ceive and  entertain  the  guest.^  If  you  sue  him  you 
will  have  to  prove  that  he  kept  a  common  inn ;  *  that 
you  are  a  traveler,^  and  came  to  the  inn  and  de- 
manded to  be  received  and  lodged  as  a  guest ; 
that  he  had  sufficient  accommodatioUjC  and  refused 
to  take  you  in,  although  you  were  in  a  fit  and 
proper  state  to  be  i-eceived,''  and  offered  to  pay  a 
reasonable  sum  for  accommodation." 

"  In  most  hotels  they  keep  a  register  in  which  one 
is  expected  to  inscribe  his  cognomen  by  means  of  a 
pen  of  the  most  villainous  description;  must  ono 
give  liis  name,  or  may  he  travel  incog,  and  without 
exhibiting  his  cacography  ?  " 


1  Bac.  Abr.  Inns,  c.  4;  Cross  v.  Andrews,  Cro.  Eliz.  G22. 

2  Addison  on  Torts,  938.    But  see  Com.  Dig.  vol.  1,  p.  413. 
8  Curw.  Hawk.  714. 

4  Cayle's  Case,  8  Coke,  32. 

6  Rex  y.  Luellin,  12  Mod.  445;  Reg.  v.  Rymner,  L.  R.  2  Q.  B, 

D.  130. 
CFo'.i  V  Knight,  8  Mees.  &  W.  269. 

7  FeV  J.  Knight,  supra. 


^ 


A  COMMON  INN  AND    IXNKEEPEll, 


13 


19 


"An  innkeeper  has  no  right  to  pry  into  a  guest's 
affairs,  and  insist  upon  knowing  liis  name  and  ad- 
dress,"^ I  replied. 

"  Talking  al)(»ut  registers,"  began  my  friend  Jones, 
hut  in  tones  so  \o\V  that  what  lie  said  must  go  in 
the  foot  notes.  2 

"Last  summer,"  continued  talkative  Jones,  "I 
tried  to  get  quarters  late  one  Saturday  night  nt  a 
village  inn,  but  the  proprietor  refused  to  admit  me; 
and  a  venerable  female  put  lier  liead  out  of  the 
'\vin(h)w,  like  Sisera's  mother,  and  told  me  that 
they  were  all  in  bed,  and  that  they  could  not  take 
in  those  who  i)rofaned  the  Sabbath  day." 

"You  might  liave  sued  for  damages,"  I  said,  "for 
tlio  innkeeper  being  cosily  settled  in  his  bed  for  the 
night,  or  it  being  Sunday,  makes  no  difference  in 
a  traveler's  rights;*^  at  least  where,  as  in  England, 
it  is  not  illegal  to  travel  on  that  sacred  day." 

"I  think  you  said  that  one  must  be  a  traveler  be- 
fore one  could  claim  the  rights  of  a  guest — is  that 
an  essential?" 

"  Yes,  a  sine  qua  ?ion.  Bacon  says  :  '  Inns  are  for 

1  Rex  V.  Ivens,  7  Car.  &  V.  213. 

2  •'  Did  you  seo  that  absurd  paragraph  concerning  a  traveler 
who  was  writing  his  name  in  tho  book  wlien  a  IJ.  IJ.  sallied 
out  of  a  crack  and  took  his  way  slowly  and  sedately  across 
tho  page.  Tlio  newly  arrived  paused  and  remarked:  *I'vo 
been  bh'd  by  St.  Joo  lieas,  bitten  by  Jvansas  City  spiders,  and 
interviewed  by  Fort  Scot  graybacks,  but  I'll  bo  liauged  if  I 
ever  was  in  a  place  before  where  tho  bedbugs  looked  over  the 
hotel  register  to  lind  out  whero  your  room  was.'  " 

"It  is  generally  not   necessary  for  them  to  take   tliat 
trouble,"  I  replied. 
2  iiex  V.  Ivens,  7  Car.  &  P.  213. 


I 


14 


A  COMMON  IXN  AND    INNKEEPER. 


passengers  and  wayfaring  men,  so  that  a  friend  or 
a  neighbor  shall  have  no  action  as  :i  guest '  ^  (unless, 
indeed,  the  neighbor  bo  on  his  travels  ^j.  The  L.'itin 
word  for  an  inn  is,  as  of  course  you  know,  diversor^ 
iitrrij  ))ecauso  ho  who  lodges  there  is  (juasi  dlocrtois 
8C  a  via.'''*  ^ 

*'  What  wretched  food !"  said  my  wife,  as  she 
helped  herself  to  a  biscuit.     *'  'Tis  enough  to  poison 


»> 


one. 

"  It  is  by  :io  means  a  feast  of  delicacies — the  brains 
of  singing  birds,  the  roc  of  mullets,  or  the  sunny 
halves  of  peaches,"  returned  our  friend. 

"  Well,  my  dear,"  I  replied,  "  a  ])ublican  selling 
unwholesome  drink  or  victuals  may  be  indicted  for 
a  misdemeanor  at  common  law;  and  the  unhappy 
recipient  of  his  noxious  mixtures  may  maintain  an 
action  for  the  injury  done  ;4  and  this  is  so  even  if 
a  servant  provides  the  goods  without  the  master's 
express  directions."  ^ 

tt  tt  t?  'ff  *  'ff 

A  stroll  through  the  village,  and  a  little  moraliz- 
ing beside  the  scarcely  cold  embers  of  the  rival  inn. 
where 

"  Imagination  fondly  stooped  to  trace 
The  parlor  splendors  of  that  festive  place, 
The  whitewashed  wall,  the  nicely  sanded  floor, 
The  varuisli'd  clock  that  clicked  behind  the  door," 

passed  the  time  until  Darkness  spread  her  sablo 

1  Bac.  Abr.  vol.  4,  p.  448.  »  Cayle's  Case. 

a  Walling  v.  Potter,  35  Conn.  183.     ■♦  Koll.  Abr.  «J5. 
6  1  Blackst.  Com.  430. 


.^^^:;^ 


A  COMMON"  IXN  AND    INNKEnPnR, 


15 


robe  over  all  tl»o  earth.     "Wo  sat  outside  our  inn  in 
tlie  fresli  air,  and  listened  while  the  myriad  crea- 
tures whieli  seem  born  on  every  summer  night  u|> 
lifted  in  joy  tlieir  Ktridulous  voices,  l>il)iuiJf  the  whole 
chromatic;  .scale  with  infinite  Kelf-satisfaetion.     In- 
numerable crickets  sent  forth  wh.'it,  perhaps,  were 
gratulations  on  our  arrival ;  a  colony  of  tree-toads 
aske<l,  in  the  key  of  0  sharp  major,  after  tlieir  rela- 
tives in  the  back  country;  while  the  swell  bass  of 
the  bull-frogs  seemed  to  be,  with  deep  and  hearty 
utterances,  thanking  heaven   that  their  dwelling- 
])laces  were  beside  pastures  green  in  cooling  streams. 
For  a  while  wc  listened  to  this  concert  of    Jilipu- 
tians  risincT  hii^her  and  higher  as  Nature  hushed  to 
sleep  her  children  of  a  larger  growth.     Ere  long,  tho 
vilia:ie  ])ell  tolled  the  hour  for  retirincr.     I  told  tho 
landlady  to  call  us  betimes,  and  then  my  wife  and 
self  shut  ourselves  up  in  our  little  room  for  the  night. 
Very  weariness  induced  the  partner  of  my  joys 
and  sorrows  to  commit  her  tender  frame  to  tho 
coarse  bedclothes  ;  but  before  "  tired  Nature's  sweet 
restorer,  balmy  sleep  "  arrived,  and  with  repose  our 
eyelids  closed,  an  entomological  hunt  began.     First 
a  host  of  little  black  bandits  found  us  out,  and  at- 
tacked us  right  vigorously,  skirmishing  bravely  and 
as  systematically  as  if  they  had  been  trained  in  the 
schools  of  that  educator  of  fleas,  ISignor  Bcrtolotto, 
only  his  students  always  crawl  carefully  along  and 
reverhop,  as  we  found  by  experience  that  our  fierce 
assailants  did.     After  we  had  disposed  of  these  light 
cavalry — these  F  sharps — for  a  time,  and  were  again 
endeavoring  to  compose  our  minds  to  sleep,  there 


^ 


rrrrsrtsOKsmBi 


t      ': 


16 


A  COMMON  INN  AND    INNKEEITR. 


came  a  dt'taclinient  of  tlio  B-flat  brigade,  of  aider* 
manic  proportions,  pressing  slowly  on.  Again  there 
was  a  search  as  for  hidden  treasures.  Fauirh  !  what 
a  time  we  had,  pursuing  and  capturing,  crushing 
and  decapitating,  hosts  of  creatures  not  to  be  n;imed 
in  cars  polite.  Most  hideous  night,  thou  wert  not 
sent  for  slumber!  It  would  almost  have  been  better 
for  us  had  we  been  inmates  of  the  hospital  for  such 
creatures  at  Surat,  for  there  we  would  have  been 
paid  for  the  feast  we  furnished.  Here  we  had  the 
prospect  of  paying  for  our  pains  and  pangs. 

I  am  an  ardent  entomologist;  but  I  solemnly 
avow  I  grew  tired  that  night  of  my  favorite  science, 
'Twas  vain  to  think  of  shunber — 

Not  poppy,  nor  manclragora, 
Kor  all  tliG  drowsy  syrups  of  the  world, 

nor  yet  the  plan  adopted  by  the  Samoan  islanders, 
who  place  a  snake,  imprisoned  in  bamboo,  beneath 
their  heads  and  lind  the  hissing  of  the  reptile  highly 
soporific,  could  medicine  us  to  that  sweet  sleep 
which  nature  so  much  needed.  At  length  we  arose 
in  despair,  donned  our  apj^arel,  and  sat  down  be- 
side the  window  to  watch  for  the  first  briglit  tints 
heralding  the  advent  of  the  glorious  king  of  day. 

"Must  wc  pay  for  such  wretched  accommoda- 
tion ?''  asked  my  wife,  mournfully.  I  shook  my 
head  as  I  rej^lied  : 

"  I  fear  me  so.^  We  might  escape ;  2  but  I  don't 
want  to  have  a  row  about  my  bill  in  a  dollar  house." 

1  nart  V.  Windsor,  12  Meea.  &  W.  Ca 

2  Sutton  V.  Temple,  Ibid.  52,  GO. 


A   COiUiON  INN  AND    INNKEEPER. 


17 


As  soon  as  morning  broke  wo  began  our  i">repara. 
tions  for  an  early  departure  from  the  purgatory  in 
wlnich  "wc  liad  i)asse(l  the  night.  When  we  had 
descended,  and  Iiad  summoned  the  hidy  of  the 
house  to  settle  with  her,  my  wife  spoke  strongly 
about  the  other  occupants  of  our  bed. 

The  Woman  hotly  exclaimed,  "  You  are  mistaken, 
marm;  I  am  sure  there  is  not  a  single  ilea  in  the 
whole  house ! " 

"A  single  flea'  "  retorted  my  wife,  with  wither- 
ing scorn  ;  "  a  single  flea  !  I  should  think  not ;  foi 
I  am  sure  that  they  are  all  married,  and  have  large 
families,  too." 

"  Yes,"  I  added, 


*  The  1  ittlo  flcaa  liavo  lesser  fleas 
Upon  their  backs  to  Lite  'em ; 

The  lesser  lleas  have  other  fleas, 
And  so  ad  i)\finUum.  " 


I        tjl 
i 


:. 


!     I 


Chapter  II. 

CITY  HOUSE  AND  MANNERS. 

The  next  evening,  as  Mrs.  Lawyer  and  this  pres- 
ent writer  were  rattling  along  at  the  rate  of  thirty 
or  forty  miles  an  hour  in  the  tail  of  the  iron  horse, 
my  bride,  imagining  that  she  would  like  to  know 
somewhat  of  the  law,  which  had  been  my  mistress 
for  many  years,  and  the  C7mi(i  of  the  honeymoon 
having  already  commenced,  asked  me  what  was  the 
legal  definition  of  an  inn. 

I  replied:  "The  definitions  of  an  inn,  like  those 
of  lovely  woman,  are  very  numerous :  but  perhaps 
the  most  concise  is  that  given  by  old  Petersdorff, 
who  says  it  is  *  a  house  for  the  reception  and  enter- 
tainment of  all  comers  for  gain.'  ^  Judge  Bayley 
defined  it  to  be  a  house  where  the  traveler  is  fur- 
nished with  everything  he  has  occasion  for  while  on 
the  way."  2 

"I  should  dearly  love  to  stop  at  such  an  inn,'* 
broke  in  my  wife.  "The  worthy  host  would  find 
my  wants  neither  few  nor  small." 

"  Oh,  of  course,  the  everything  is  to  be  taken  not 
only  cum  grano  sails  but  with  a  whole  cellar  full 
of  that  condiment.  For  instance,  the  landlord  is 
not  bound  to  provide  clothes  or  wearing  apparel  for 


1  Peters.  Abr.  vol.  5,  p.  159;  Jeremy  on  Bailments,  loO. 

2  Thompson  v.  Lacy,  3  B.  &  Aid.  203.    See  also  Dickenson 
i;.  Rodgers,  4  Humph.  179. 

U8J 


CITY  HOUSE  AND  MANNEES. 


10 


5> 


3 
I 


his  gucst.i  But  to  proceed  with  our  subject.  Best, 
J.,  tried  his  hand — a  good  one,  too — at  definition' 
making,  and  declared  an  inn  or  hotel  to  he  a  house, 
the  owner  of  which  holds  out  that  ho  will  receive 
all  travelers  and  sojourners  who  are  willing  to  pay 
a  price  adequate  to  the  sort  of  accommodation 
provided,  and  who  come  in  a  state  in  wliich  they 
are  fit  to  be  received  ^  Another  judge  says  it  is  a 
public  house  of  entertainment  for  all  who  choose  to 
visit  it  as  guests  witliout  any  previous  agreement 
as  to  the  time  of  their  stay  or  the  terms  of  pay- 
ment.2  The  judges  have,  also,  got  off  definitions 
of  the  word  'innkeeper.'  It  has  been  said  that 
every  one  who  makes  it  his  business  to  entertain 
travelers  and  passengers  and  provide  lodging  and 
necessaries  for  them  and  their  horses  and  attend- 
ants, is  a  common  innkeeper.*  But  Bacon,  very 
wisely  and  prudencly,  adds  to  this  descrii)tion  the 
important  words  'for  a  reasonable  compensation.'^ 
One  who  entertains  travelers  for  payment  only 
occasionally,  or  takes  in  persons  under  an  express 
contract,  and  shuts  his  doors  upon  those  whom  he 
chooses,  is  not  an  innkeeper,  nor  is  he  liable  as 
euch.^     Stables  are  not  necessary  to  constitute  au 

1  Bacon's  Abr.  Inna,  C. 

2  Thompson  v.  Lacy,  3  B.  &  Aid.  2S.3. 

8  Wintermuto  v.  Clarke,  5  Sand.  247;  Pinkerton  v.  "Wood- 
ward, 33  Cal.  557. 

*  Parker  v.  Flint,  12  Mod.  255;  Parkhurst  v.  Foster,  Salk. 
287. 

"  Bacon's  Abr.  Inn.  C. 

CLyonr.  Smith,  1  Morris,  18 1;  State  r.  Mathews,  2  Dev.  &  B. 
421;  Bonner  v.  Welborn,  7  Geo.  290.  But  see  Commonwealth 
u.  Wetherboe,  101  Mass.  214. 


1 


Hi 


20 


CITY  HOUSE  AND  MANNERS. 


inn;^  nor  is  it  essential  that  tlie  meals  should  Ixd 
served  at  table  cVhote.'^  A  house  for  the  reception 
and  entertainment  principally  of  emigrants  arriv- 
ing at  a  seaport  and  usually  remaining  but  a  short 
time,  is  yet  an  inn."^ 

Here  I  stopped  because  I  had  nothing  more  to  say ; 
but  seeing  that  my  wife  was  gazing  out  of  the  win- 
dow in  a  most  inattentive  manner,  yet  not  wishing 
her  to  think  that  my  fund  of  knowledge  was  ex- 
hausted, I  added :  "  But  a  truce  to  this  style  of 
conversation.  Remember  that  we  are  a  newly 
married  couple,  and  are  not  expected  to  talk  so 
rationally," 

A  pause  ensuecl,  during  which,  with  great  amuse- 
ment and  no  little  surprise  at  the  facts  and  doc- 
trines enunciated,  we  listened  to  the  following 
dialogue  between  two  rosy-cheeked  Englishmen 
Bittinix  in  the  seat  behind  us  : 

•  First  Briton  (loquitur). — "  IIow  disgusting  it  is 
to  see  those  vile  spittoons  in  hotels,  in  j^rivato 
houses,  in  churches  —  everywhere;  and  notwith- 
standing that  their  name  is  legion,  the  essence  of 
nicotine  is  to  be  seen  on  all  sides,  dyeing  the  floors, 
the  walls,  the  furniture." 

Second  Briton.  —  "I  have  sometimes  doubted 
whether  the  Americans  expectorate  to  obtain  good 
luck,  or  whether  it  is  that  they  have  such  good  for- 
tune ever  attending  upon  their  designs  and  plans 
because  they  expectorate  so  much." 


1  Thompson  v.  Lacy,  supra. 

2  Krohii  V.  Sweeny,  2  Daly,  N.  Y.  200. 

«  Willard  v.  lleiuliartlt,  2  E.  D.  Smith,  148. 


CITY  HOUSE  AND  MANNERS- 


21 


First  B.   (rather  dazed). — "I  don't  understand 


j> 


you 

Second  B.  (in  tones  of  surprise  at  the  other's 
want  of  comprehension). — "Don't  you  know  that 
many  Englislinien  spit  if  tliey  meet  a  white  horse, 
or  a  squintini^inan,oraniagpie,  or  if,  inadvertently, 
they  step  under  a  ladder,  or  wash  their  hands  in 
the  same  basin  as  a  friend?  In  Lancashire,  boys 
Bpit  over  tlieir  lingers  before  beginning  to  fight,  and 
travelers  do  the  same  on  a  stone  when  leaving 
home,  and  then  throw  it  away,  and  market  i:>eoide 
do  it  on  tlie  first  money  they  receive." 

First  B.  (interrogatively). — "But,  if  these  dirty 
people  do  indulge  in  this  vmseemly  habit,  Avhat 
then?" 

Second  B. — "  Why,  they  consider  it  a  charm  that 
will  bring  good  luck,  or  avert  evil.  Swedish  peas- 
ants expectorate  thrico  if  they  cross  water  after 
dark.  Tiie  old  Athenians  used  to  spit  if  they 
passed  a  madman.  The  savage  New  Zealand  priest 
wets  two  sticks  with  his  saliva  when  he  strives  to 
divine  the  result  of  a  coming  battle." 

First  B. — '•  But  the  why  and  the  wherefore  of  all 
this  expectoration  ?  " 

Second  B. — "  l^ecause  the  mouth  was  once  con- 
sidered the  only  portal  by  which  evil  spirits  could 
enter  into  a  man,  and  by  which  alone  they  could  bo 
forced  to  make  their  exit;  and  the  idea  was  to 
drive  the  fiends  out  with  the  saliva.  The  Mussul- 
mans made  spitting  and  nose-blowing  a  i>art  of 
their  religious  ceremonies,  for  they  hoped  thereby 
to  free  themselves  from  the  demons  which  they  be- 


22 


CITY  HOUSE  AND  MANNERS. 


ii 


'III 


lieved  filled  the  air ;  and  a,  Kamtscliatkan  priest, 
after  ho  has  spruiklcd  with  holy  water  the  habo 
brought  to  the  baptismal  font,  spits  solemnly  to 
north  and  south,  to  east  and  west." 

A  wild  shriek  of  the  locomotive,  announcinor  that 
wo  were  drawing  near  our  destination,  and  tho 
necessary  pre])arations  consequent  upon  such  ar- 
rival, prevented  us  listening  further  to  this  conver- 
sation. I  remarked  to  my  wife  that  if  I  had  never 
known  of  evil  spirits  being  laid  by  the  efflux  of 
saliva,  I  had  at  least  heard  of  their  being  raised 
thereby,  and  instanced  Shylock  and  Signor  Antonio. 

Wc  drove  up  to  the  "Occidental  House"  in  tho 
bus  beloncjinu  to  that  famous  establishment.  Tho 
satchel  of  a  fellow-traveler  was  Iosl  off  tho  top  of 
the  carriage.  I  endeavored  to  console  him  with 
tho  information  that  years  ago,  where  the  keeper 
of  a  i)ublic  house  gave  notice  that  he  would  furnish 
a  free  conveyance  to  and  from  the  cars  to  all  pas- 
sengers, Avith  their  baggage,  and  for  that  purpose 
employed  the  owner  of  certain  carriages  to  tako 
passengers  and  their  baggage,  free  of  charge,  to  his 
house,  and  a  traveler,  who  knew  of  this  arrange- 
ment, drove  in  one  of  these  cabs  to  the  hotel,  and 
on  the  way  there  had  his  trunk  lost  or  stolen 
throuGfh  the  want  of  skill  or  care  of  the  driver,  tho 
inakeeper  Avas  held  liable  to  make  good  tho  loss. 
T' •  oi\ri  that  decided  tho  point  held  that  it  was 
v.ivac''  oriai  whether  he  was  responsible  as  a  common 
Carrie  -  o'*  as  an  innkeeper,  as  in  either  case  tho 
consideration  for  the  undertaking  was  the  profit  to 
be  derived  from  the  entertainment  of  the  traveler 


i-i*L. 


CITY  nOUSU   AND  MANNERS. 


23 


as  a  guest,  and  tliat  an  implied  promise  to  take  care 
of  the  baggage  was  founded  on  such  consideration.! 

My  fellow-traveler  seemed  not  a  little  pleased 
with  my  information,  and  expressed  his  intention 
of  seeking  an  early  interview  with  the  landlord  of 
the  ^'Occidental  "  on  the  subject  of  the  lost  satchel. 

While  in  the  bus,  a  man  who  appeared  to  bo  an 
agent  for  a  rival  house  made  some  very  dispar- 
aging remarks  with  regard  to  the  "  Occidental,"  with 
more  vehemence  than  elecrance  or  truthfulness,  cvi- 
dently  with  the  design  of  inducing  some  intending 
guests  to  change  their  minds  and  go  elsewhere.  It 
was  well  for  him  that  none  of  the  "  Occidental  '*  peo- 
ple heard  him,  for  if  they  had  he  might  speedily  have 
become  the  defendant  in  an  action  at  law,  for  mis- 
statements like  his  are  actionable.2 

What  a  contrast  between  the  palatial  mansion 
at  which  we  now  alighted,  and  the  hovel  which  the 
previous  night  had  covered  our  heads — (protection 
it  had  not  affordel).  The  small  and  dirty  en- 
trance of  the  one  was  exchanged  for  a  si)acious  and 
lofty  hall  in  the  other,  paved  with  marble  and  fitted 
up  with  comfortable  sofas  and  cushions,  on  wdiicli 
was  lounging  and  smoking,  talking  and  reading,  a 
multifarious  lot  of  humanity;  the  parlor,  with  its 
yellow  paint  and  rag  carpet,  was  replaced  by  large, 
well  liujlited  and  eleccantlv  furnished  drawincr-rooms, 
with  carpets  so  soft  that  a  footstep  was  no  more 
heard  than  a  passing  shadow,  and  gorgeous  mirrorg 
reflecting  the  smiles,  faces  and  elaborately  artistio 

1  Dickinson  v.  "Winchester,  4  Cusli.  114. 

2  Bacon's  Aljr.  Inns,  B. 


uaMa*pgT« 


24 


CITY   HOUSE  AI.'D  MANNERS. 


I    1 1 


i 


I  i 


!    I 


toilets  of  city  belles,  find  tlic  trim  figures  and  prim 
moustaches  of  youthful  swells;  .'i  pretty  little  room, 
yclept  an  elevator,  neatly  carpeted,  well  lighted, 
free  from  noxious  scents,  with  comfortable  scats 
and  liandsome  reflectors,  led  up  on  high,  instead  o£ 
the  groaning,  creaking  stairs  of  the  country  inn. 
The  bedrooms,  with  their  spotless  linen,  luxurious 
beds,  dainty  carpets,  and  cosy  chairs,  rested  and 
refreshed  one's  weary  bones  by  their  very  appear- 
ance.  The  noble  dininGchall,  with  its  delicately 
tinted  walls,  its  pillars  and  gilded  roof,  with  neatly 
dressed  waiters,  and  ihc  master  of  ceremonies  pn- 
iroUing  the  room  seeing  to  the  comfort  of  the  guests, 
tho  arrangements  of  their  places,  and  that  each 
servant  did  his  duty,  gave  a  zest  to  one's  appetito 
which  the  tempting  viands  increased  a  hundred  fold, 
and  the  soups,  fish,  releves,  entrees,  game,  relishes, 
vegetables,  pastry,  and  dessert  of  tho  77ienu  differed 
from  tho  bill  of  fare  of  tho  previous  day  as  docs 
light  from  darkness,  sweet  from  bitter. 

As  we  were  ascending  in  tlie  luxuriously  furnished, 
brilliantly  lighted  and  gently  moving  elevator,  a  nin- 
nyharamcr  tried  to  get  on  after  the  conductor  had 
started.  In  doing  so  he  well  nigh  severed  tho  con- 
nection between  his  ill-stored  head  and  well-fed 
body.  I  told  him  that  his  conduct  was  most  fool- 
hardy, for  if  ho  had  been  injured  ho  could  havQ 
recovered  nothing  from  tho  hotel  proprietor,  for 
tho  accident  would  have  been  directly  traceable  to 
Lis  own  stupid  want  of  ordinary  care  and  i^rudenco.^ 


I   I 


1  Robinson  v.  Cove,  22  Vt.  213;  Butterfield  v.  Forrester,  11 
East,  CO;  Ratlibun  v.  Payn*?,  19  Wend.  301). 


CITT    HOUSE    AND    MANNERS. 


25 


At  llio  (liiiiKT  t:il)lo  wo  found  that  many  of  the 
people,    nL'twithslundiiiL^    tlio    luxiii'ious  surround- 
ings!, sc'imuinI  quite  oblivious  of  tlie  sau:e  advice  given 
by  Mistress  Ilauuah  Woolley,  of  London,  in  the  year 
of  grace  1(J7o.    That  wortliy  tsay.s  in  lier  "Gentle- 
woman's Companion  "  :    "  Do  not  eat  spoon-meat  so 
hot  that  tears  stand  in  your  eyes,  or  that  thereby  you 
betray  your  intolerable  greediness.     Do    not   bito 
your  bread,  but  cut  or  l)reak  it;  and  keep  not  your 
knife  always  in  your  liand,  for  that  is  as  unscendy 
as  a  gentlewoman  v»  ho  jn'etended  to  have  as  littlo 
a  stomach  as  she  liad  mouth,  and  therefore  would 
not  swallow  her  jjcas  by  spoonfuls,  but  took  them 
one  by  one  and  cut  them  in  two  before  she  would 
eat  them.     Fill  not  your  mouth   so  full  that  your 
cheeks  shall  swell  like  a  pair  of  Scotch  bag-pipes." 
One  of  the  com])any  near  by  ate  as  if  he  had 
never  eaten  in  any  place  save  a  shanly  all  the  days 
of  his  life;  he  was  not  quite  so  bad,  however,  as  the 
celebrated  Dr.  Johnson,  who,  Lord  Macaulay  tells 
us,  "toro  his  dinner  like  a  famished  wolf,  with  the 
veins  swelling  in  his  forehead,  and  the  perspiration 
running  down  liis  cheeks;"  but  yet,  in  dispatching 
his  food,  ho  swallowed  two-thirds  of  his  knife   at 
every  mouthful  with  the  coolness  of  a  juggler. 

"Such  a  savage  as  that  ought  not  to  be  permitted 
to  take  his  meals  in  the  dining-room,"'  said  my  wife. 
"I  am  not  sure  that  ho  could  be  prevented  on  ac- 
count of  his  style  of  eating,"  I  replied,  as  the  man 
began  shoveling  peas  with  a  knife  int<j  his  mouth, 
which  could  not  have  been  broader  imless  Dame 
Nature  had  placed  his  auricular  ai)peudagos  an  inch 

3. 


20 


CITY  HOUSE  AN'D  MAXXERS. 


or  two  furtliei"  back.  (By  llio  way,  liow  did  they 
cat  i)t'a9  before  tiic  days  of  knives,  forks,  and 
spoons?) 

"Do  you  moan  to  say  tbat  if  an  individual  makes 
himself  so  extremely  disaujrceable  to  all  other  t^uests, 
tlio  ])ro}(rietor  has  no  right  to  ask  liiui  to  leave?" 
queried  Mrs.  L. 

"  Well,  my  dear,  it  was  held  in  Pennsylvania  that 
the  host  might  request  such  an  one  to  depart ;  an«l 
that  if  ho  did  not,  the  h()tel-kee|)er  mii»"ht  lav  his 
liands  gently  npon  him  and  lead  him  out,  and  if  re- 
sistance was  made  might  use  sufficient  force  to  ac* 
comi)lish  the  desired  cnd."^ 

•  "Then  please  tell  that  waiter  to  take  that  m:m 
out,"  broke  in  my  wife. 

"  Not  so  fast,  my  dear ;  that  decision  was  reversed 
afterward,  and  it  was  said  to  be  assault  and  battery 
so  to  eject  a  guest.2  I  have  known  6000  damages 
given  to  a  guest  for  an  assault  on  him  by  his  lancb 
lord.^  I  remember,  too,  a  case  where  a  man  rejoicing 
in  the  trisyllabic  name  of  Prendergast  was  coming 
from  Madras  to  London  round  the  Cai)c  of  Storms, 
having  i)aid  his  fare  as  a  cabin  passenger.  Ilis  habit 
was  to  reach  across  others  at  table  to  helj)  himself, 
and  to  take  potatoes  and  broiled  bones  in  his  lingers, 
dovonringthem  as  was  the  fashion  in  the  days  when 
Adam  delved  and  Eve  span,  if  they  had  such  things 
then.  The  captain,  offended  at  this  ungentlemanly 
conduct,  refused  to  treat  Master  P.  as  a  first-clast^ 


1  Commonwealth  v.  Mitchell,  2  Pars.  Scl.  Caa.  431. 
'^  Comruonwealth  v.  Mitchell,  1  Pliila.  GJ. 
SKelsey  v.  Heury,  49  IlL  4S8.    ' 


CITY   IIOUSI2  AND  MANT^ERS. 


27 


passenger,  excliuled  liim  from  tlio  oubln,  and  would 
not  allow  liini  to  walk  on  the  weather  tside  of  the 
ship.  On  reaehing  England,  Prendergast  Hued  the 
eaptain  for  the  breaeli  of  Ids  agreenuMit  to  carry 
lilni  as  a  cuddy  passengi'r ;  the;  oflicer  pleaded  that 
the  conduct  of  the  man  had  heen  vulgar,  ollVnsIve, 
indecorous  and  unbecoming,  ])ut  the  fou  of  Nep- 
tune was  midcted  in  dam.tges  to  the  tune  of  £'Jj, 
Chief  Justice  Tindal  observing  that  it  would  be 
dilllcult  to  say  what  degree  of  want  of  i)oli^h  would, 
in  jxunt  of  law,  warrant  a  ca]>tain  in  excluding  one 
frt)m  the  cmbly.  Conduct  unbecoming  a  gentleman 
in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word  mi<:ht  possibly  justify 
him,  but  in  this  case  there  was  no  imputation  of  the 
Avant  of  gentlemanly  principles. ^  But  here,  at  hist, 
comes  onr  dinner;  let  us  phow  our  neighbors  liow 
to  liandle  knife  and  fork  aright." 

And  a  very  goo'l  dinner  it  was,  too,  although 
dished  by  a  cook  who  had  not  the  cidents  of  the 
ancient  kniiihts  of  the  kitchen  who  could  dexter« 
ously  serve  up  a  sucking-pig  boiled  on  one  side  and 
roasted  on  the  other,  or  make  so  true  a  fish  out  of 
turnips  as  to  deceive  sight,  taste,  and  smell.  These 
antique  masters  of  the  gastronomic  art  knew  how 
to  suit  each  dish  to  the  nee<l  an<l  necessity  of  each 
guest.  They  held  to  the  doctrine  that  the  nu)re  the 
nourishment  of  the  body  is  subtilized  and  alembi, 
cated,  the  more  ^viU  the  rpialities  of  the  nnnd  be 
rarefied  and  quintessenced,  too.  For  a  young  man 
destined  to  live  in  the  atmos})here  of  a  royal  court, 
whipped  cream  and  calves'  trotters  were  sui)plied 


1  Prenderfiast  v.  Compton,  8  Car.  &  P.  45i. 


cixr  iiousn  and  ikiAXxniw. 

by  tliorn;  for  .'i  sprl^  of  fiisliion,  linnets'  licads, 
c'sscnco  of  3Iay  beetles,  bntterlly  broth,  and  other 
light  trifles;  for  a  lawyer  <lestine<l  to  the  chicanery 
of  his  ])rofession  and  for  the  gloi-ies  of  the  bar, 
Bunces  of  mustard  and  viiieLTar  and  other  condi- 
inents  of  a  bitter  and  pnngH'iit  nature  would  bo 
carefully  provided.^  As  Lord  Cluloseton  says,  "Tho 
ancients  seem  to  ha\e  been  more  mejital,  luoro 
imaginative,  than  wo  in  their  diNhes  ;  they  ft.'d  their 
bodies,  as  well  as  their  nunds,  upon  delusion:  for 
instance,  they  esteemed  beyond  all  price  the  tongues 
of  nightingales,  because  they  tasted  the  very  musio 
of  tho  birds  in  the  organ  of  their  utterance.  That 
is  the  poetry  of  gastronomy." 

I  noticed  at  a  table  rear  by  a  merry  party.  I 
afterward  learned  tliat  it  was  composed  ol  a  num- 
ber of  fast  young  men  from  the  city,  w  ho  had  coiuo 
in  to  have  a  good  dinner,  and  exhibit  themselves, 
their  garments,  and  their  graces  before  the  assem- 
bled guests;  and  that,  when  the  hour  of  reckoning 
came,  the  needful  wherewith  to  liquidate  the  little 
bill  was  not  forthcoming.  T!ie  landlord  insisted 
that  each  one  was  liable  for  the  whole,  as  there  was 
no  special  agreement,  (and  this  would  generally  bo 
the  ease  2)  and  that  one  who  was  solvent  should  pay 
tlic  reckoning  for  all;  but,  unfortunately  for  Boni- 
face, his  clerk  had  been  told  beforehand  that  that 
moneyed  man  was  the  guest  of  the  others,  Avho 
were  all  as  poor  as  Job's  i)eahens;  so  that  tho  poor 
man  liad  no  recourse  against  the  deadheads,  in  this 

iDons  do  Comus,  Paris,  1758. 

2  roster  V.  Taylor,  3  Cumi3.  X.  P.  40. 


CITY   HOUSE   AND  MANNERS. 


direction,  at  all  events,!  and  even  the  moneyed  pjent 
got  a,  free  dinner.  The  worthies  s\vai;ij;ered  out, 
Binu^ini^  in  an  undertone  tlic  words  of  an  I'^tliiopiau 
minstrel  aj^propriate  to  the  oceasion. 

«  *  «  *  # 

As  my  wife  was  returnlni^  to  lier  room  after  dln- 
tier,  she  met  a  poor  woman,  wii()S(3  daily  walk  in  life 
was  from  the  wash-tuh  to  the  elolhes-line,  h)okin<jj 
in  vain  for  some  miserahle  sinner  who  had  departed 
leavini^  his  laundry  Ijill  un[)aid.  After  etideavoring 
in  vain  to  eonsole  the  woman,  ]M)-s.  Lawyer,  (who 
had  a  Quixotic  way  of  interfering^  in  (»ther  people's 
troubles)  came  runniiiuj  back  to  mo  to  ask  if  the 
hotel-keeper  was  not  bound  t*)  ])ay  for  the  washing. 
I  told  her  of  course  not,  iiidess  he  ha<l  been  in  the 
habit  of  ])aying  the  laundry  bills  of  guests  ndio  had 
left;  then  an  undertaking  to  that  effect  might  bo 
inferred,  and  it  mii^ht  bo  considered  as  evidence  of 
an  antecedent  ])romise.-  With  this  small  crumb  of 
comfort,  my  wife  returned  to  the  user  of  soap  and 
destrover  of  buttons. 

While  sitting,  a  la  31r.  I>ri<j:gs,  in  the  smoking- 
room,  "with  my  waistcoat  unbuttoned,  to  give  that 
just  and  rational  liberty  to  the  subordinate  ])arts  of 
the  human  commonwealth  which  tlie  increase  of 
their  consequence  after  the  hour  of  dinner  naturally 
demands,"  and  genlly,(as  good  Bishop  ll.dl  puts  it) 
"whitling  myself  away  in  nicotian  incense  to  the 
idol  of  my  intem[)erance,"  a  fellow-[)uffer  spoke  to 
me  about  the  excessive  charges  of  the  house. 


^  Foster  v.  Taylor,  3  Camp.  N.  P.  49. 
'-^  CoUard  f .  White,  1  Starkie.  171. 


30 


CITY   HOUSE   AND   MANNERS. 


I  I 
i  ] 


i 


I  toM  liim  tlint  in  the  good  old  days  of  yore,  aiul 
perchance  even  yet,  an  innkeeper  who  charged  ex- 
orbitant prices  iniglit  bo  indicted,  and  that  our 
ancestors  were  wont  to  have  the  rates  fixed  by  pub- 
lic proclamation.'^ 

He  then  remarked  that  he  wouM  not  mind  about 
the  prices,  if  the  landlord  had  allowed  him  to  do  u 
little  business  in  the  place. 

"Yourriij-ht  to  lodc^e  and  be  fed  in  the  house 
gives  you  no  right  to  carry  on  trade  hero,"''^  I  re- 
plied. 

''■  One  of  the  waiters  threatened  to  kick  mo  yes* 
terday  for  doing  business." 

"  Oh,  if  )ou  are  assaulted  by  any  of  the  servants, 
the  proprietor  is  liable  to  you  in  damages,  though 
ho  was  not  liimself  ])resent  at  the  time,  or  even 
consenting  thereto," ^  I  returned.  Then,  fearing 
lest  I  might  be  nourishing  a  vij)er  in  the  sliape  of 
a  book-agent,  or  ven(h)r  of  patent  articles,  I  left  tlio 
room,  the  words  of  the  poet  running  through  my 
brain : 

"  Society  is  now  ono  i>olishc(l  horde?, 
Formed  of  two  mi^jhty  tribes — the  Bores  and  Borei'." 


1  Bacon's  Abr.  Inns,  C. 

2 Ambler?'.  Skinner,  7  Hob.  (X.  Y.)5G1. 

3  Wado  V.  Thayer,  40  Cal.  578. 


Chapter  III. 


ACCIDENTS,  ROOMS,  DOGS. 


Next  morning,  as  we  were  arranging  wliither  wc 
would  wend  our  way,  I  proposed  taking  a  bus.  My 
wife  remarked  positively  that  A\e  wished  that  I 
would  not  use  that  vulgar  word.     I  returned: 

"  Humph !  Did  you  ever  liear  the  story  about 
Lord  Campbell  and  the  omnibus?" 

"  What  was  it?"  she  asked. 

"A  lawyer  while  arguing  before  hiui  continually 
spoke  of  a  (certain  kind  of  carriage  as  '  a  brougham,' 
(pronouncing both  syllables)  whereupon  his  lordship, 
with  that  pomposity  for  which  he  was  rather  noted, 
remai-ked  that  'broom'  was  the  more  usual,  and  not 
incorrect,  pronunciation;  that  such  pronunciation 
was  open  to  no  grave  objection,  and  had  the  great 
advantage  of  saving  the  time  consumed  by  uttering 
an  extra  syllable.  Shortly  afterward  Campbell 
si)oke  of  an  'omnibus.'  The  counsel  whom  he  had 
shortly  before  corrected,  jumi)ed  up  with  such 
promptitude  that  the  judge  was  startled  into  silence, 
exclaiming:  'Par<lon  me,  my  Lord,  the  carriage 
to  which  you  draw  attention  is  usually  called  '  a 
bus' :  that  pronunciation  is  open  to  no  grave  objec- 
tion, and  has  the  great  advantage  of  saving  the  time 
consumed  by  uttering  two  extra  syllables.'  You 
can  easily  draw  the  moral  from  that  little  tale,  my 
dear  " 


32 


ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,   DOGS. 


I 


Into  a  bus  wo  got,  rrnrl  out  of  it  we  got,  in  course 
of  time.  Wo  went  up  nnd  down  and  in  and  out 
and  r()und;il)out,  seeing  the  sights  and  doing  the 
town  like  many  another  couple  liad  done  ^'  •'^ore  us, 
and  will  do  aurain  durin<]C  that  most  a  ward  of 
seasons,  tlie  lioneymoon. 

While  my  spouse  gazed  in  at  some  lovely  silks, 
Bweet  feathers,  and  ducks  of  bonnets,  unmindful  of 
the  troubles  that  Moses  underwent  in  obtaininix  the 
latter  part  of  the  Decalogue,  I  took  the  opportunity 
of  instillin'4  some  leural  doctrines  and  decisions  into 
licr  head. 

"  Remember,"  I  said,  "  the  solemn  words  of  the 

poet: 

'  Man  wants  but  littln  licro  below, 


Is  or  wants  that  littlo  long.'  " 


"I  fear  that  a  woman  like  myself  will  have  to 
wait  very  long  before  sIh;  gets  her  little  wants  sup- 
plied," she  saucily  interjected. 

"I  was  about  to  remark,"  I  sternly  continued, 
"that  if  you  are  very  extravagant  in  your  wardrobe 
and  tastes,  I  will  not  bo  liable  to  pay  all  your  littlo 
bills.  Once  upon  a  time  an  English  judge  decided 
that  a  milliner  could  not  make  a  hui^'band  pay 
£5,287  for  bonnets,  laces,  feathers  and  ribbons  sup- 
plied to  his  dear  little  wife  during  a  few  months."^ 

"No  power  on  earth  could  make  you  j)ay  that 
sum,  or  iinything  like  it;  so  don't  worry  yourself, 
my  darling,"  coolly  and  somewhat  sarcastically  re- 
marked Mrs.  Lawyer. 

"  Please  do  not  interrupt.     In  another  case  it  was 


1  Lano  V.  Ironmonger,  13  ]SIees.  &  W.  OGS. 


ACCIDEXTS,   ROOMS,   DOGS. 


held  that  tlio  price  of  a  sca-sklc  suit,  sonic  £C7, 
coiikl  not  be  collcctec]  from  a  liusband— a  poor  bar^ 
rister — who  liacl  forbidden  Ids  wife  to  go  to  the 
watering  place."  i 

"  He  must  liave  been  a  very  poor  lawyer  if  lio 
never  had  a  suit  that  cost  more  to  some  unfortunate 
client." 

"Again,  tlie  Rev.  Mr.  Butclier" 

"  I  like  that  name  for  a  parson,"  again  interposed 
my  wife.  "  It  suggests,  you  know,  a  slender  frame, 
a  ])alo  face,  taper  fingers." 

I  paid  no  heed,  but  went  on : 

"Was  excused  payment  of  some  £900  for 

birds— loreees,  avadavats,  lovebirds,  quakers,  cut- 
throats— furnislied  his  wife  during  the  short  space 
of  ten  months."  2 

"  But  I  will  not  bo  as  extravagant  as  any  of  those 
misguided  ladies  were,"  remarked  my  wife,  most 
sensibly. 

"  Well,  then,  there  Avill  be  no  trouble.  Every- 
thing necessary  I  will  of  course  pay  for  willingly, 
as  I  could  be  made  to  pay  for  them,  if  unwilling. 
Even  a  piano,  perhaps,  I  will  stand;  3  <jr  false 
teeth  ;'i  but,  mind  you,  not  quack  medicines,^ 
though  you  are  a  duck." 

"I  am  glad  to  liear  'that  you'll  vouchsafe  me 
raiment,  bed,  and  food  ' ;  please  begin  now  with 
the  last  named  necessary  article,  for  I  am  hungry." 
Mrs.  Lawyer  was  a  practical  woman. 

1  Atkins  V.  Garwood,  7  Car.  &  R  750, 
"  Frt'ostono  r.  lUitchor,  <)  Car.  &  P.  (;43. 
8  Farko  r.  Kleober,  o7  ]'a.  St.  251. 
4  Gilinan  v.  Andriis,  2S  Vt.  L*41. 
C  Wood  c.  lielly,  8  Cush.  400. 


04 


ACCIDENTS,    ROOMS,   DOCS. 


<  f  f 

11 


"I  presume  it  is  time  for  lunch,"  I  replied.  "Ah 
me!  I  wish  lawyers  in  this  nineteentli  century 
could  get  their  dinners  as  cheaply  as  they  could  in 
days  gone  by,  when  the  client  paid  therefor,  as 
appears  in  many  an  ancient  register.  Tlie  clerk  of 
St.  Margaret's,  Westminster,  entered  on  his  books 
that  he  ])aid  to  Robert  Fylpott,  learned  in  the  law, 
for  his  counsel  given,  3s.  8d.,  with  Cd.  for  his  dinner. 
Tonpora  onutantur.  There's  a  restaurant.  Let 
us  enter." 

We  entered  accordingly,  and  a  very  good  lunch- 
eon WG  had,  except  for  one  slight  contretemps. 
While  engaged  upon  my  macaroni  soup,  a  long, 
reddish  thread — as  I  surmised — revealed  itself  to 
mv  vision.  Callinix  the  waiter,  I  demanded  how 
it  came  there. 

"  All ! "  said  the  man,  quite  cheerfully,  "  I  can 
tell  vou  where  that  c;une  from.  Our  cook's  in  love, 
sir,  and  is  constantly  opening  a  locket  containing  a 
lock  of  his  sweetheart's  hair.  Of  course,  some  of  it 
occasionally  falls  into  the  dishes." 

"Disgusting!  "  said  my  wife. 

"Beastly!"  said  I. 

The  waiter  calmly  continued :  "  Beg  pardon,  sir, 
but  would  you  mind  giving  me  the  hair?  You  see, 
the  cook  is  so  fond  of  her  that  he  is  quite  i)leased 
when  I  bring  him  back  a  stray  hair  or  two." 

Of  course,  I  knew  that  accidents  will,  etc. ;  and 
everything  else  was  very  good.  My  wife,  however, 
wasted  a  good  deal  of  time  in  listening  in  wonder- 
ing amazement  to  the  calculations  made  at  an  ad- 
joining table. 


ACCIDENTS,    ROOMS,    DOGS. 


85 


"  I  don't  see  how  a  waiter  can  remember  such  a 
long  list  of  things,  and  tell  what  they  all  come  to 
BO  rapidly  ;  or  how  any  two  men  could  eat  as  much 
as  thosj  two  did,"  she  remarl<ed  to  me. 

"Pshaw!"  I  replied,  "that  is  nothing  to  Mr. 
Smalhvced's  arithmetical  i)owers,  or  to  the  gastro- 
nomic achievements  of  himself  and  his  friends." 

"And  ])ray  what  did  Mr.  S.  do?"  asked  my  wife. 

"  Why,  when  their  little  luncheon  was  over,  and 
he  was  asked  hy  the  pretty  waitress  what  they  had 
had,  he  replied,  without  a  moment's  hesitation  : 
'Four  veals  and  hams  is  3  and  4  potatoes  is  3  and 
4  and  one  summer  cabbage  is  3  and  G  and  3  mar- 
rows is  4  and  G  and  G  breads  is  5  and  3  Cheshire3 
is  5  and  3  and  4  pints  of  half-and-half  is  G  and  3 
and  4  small  rums  is  8  and  3  and  3  Pollys  is  8  and 
G  and  8  and  G  in  half  a  sovereign,  Polly,  and 
18  pence  out.' " 

When  we  rose  to  leave  the  room,  we  found  that 
some  one  had  left  before  us  with  Mrs.  Lawyer's  new 
nmbrella.  Silently  I  quitted  the  place,  for  I  knew 
that  it  had  been  decided  that  a  re!^.i.aui;mt  is  not  an 
inn,  so  as  to  charge  the  proprietor  with  the  liabili- 
ties of  an  innkeeper  toward  transient  i)ersons  who 
take  their  meals  there  ;  (and  the  same  rule  ap|)licg 
even  thouii'h  he  does  in  fact  keei*  in  the  same  build- 
ing  an  hotel,  to  which  the  eating-house  is  attached ;  ^) 
and  therefore  it  would  be  useless  to  expect  the  pro- 
])rietor  to  make  good  the  loss.  Nor  is  a  refresh- 
ment bar  (where  persons  casually  passing  by  receive 
the  good  things  of  this  life  at  a  counter)  an  inn, 


1  Cariienter  v.  Taylor,  1  Uilt.  (X.  Y.)  193. 


ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,    DOGS. 


II  ii 


although  it  is  connected  witli  an  hotel,  and  kept 
Under  the  same  license,  but  entered  by  a  separate 
door  from  tlie  street.^  AVhere,  however,  a  servant 
once  asked  permission  to  leave  a  parcel  at  a  tavern, 
and  the  hlndl'•<l^'  refused  to  receive  it;  the  man, 
being  a  tl.irjsty  ooul,  called  for  something  to  drink, 
j)Utting  the  parcel  on  the  floor  behind  him  while 
imbibing,  and  while  thus  the  spirit  was  descending 
more  rapidly  tliar  it  ever  did  in  tlie  most  sensitive 
thermometer,  im  |..;ckage  disappeared,  and  never 
was  seen  again  j^  ue  owner;  yet  the  innkeeper 
was  held  ■'•('spovsiblo  fo."  -'"loss.^ 

An  umbi-'jlla  .vas  ^>o'i.,.  '  and  money  expended 
for  divers  little  odds  anrl  cm.o  ;;  jfore  we  went  back 
lo  the  hotel  for  dinner.  On  our  return,  Mr.  Dead^ 
head  and  his  wufe  entered  the  hotel  just  before  us. 
They  were  country  cousins  of  tlie  proprietor's,  and 
had  been  asked  to  dinner,  or  had  come  without  an 
invitation.  As  he  was  ()])ening  an  inside  door  a 
large  pane  of  glass  fell  out  of  it,  and,  slightly  graz- 
ing his  hand,  shivered  into  a  thousand  pieces  on  the 
marble  lloor.  I  told  him  to  rejoice  that  he  had  been 
fortunate  enough  to  escape  with  the  loss  of  but  a 
drop  or  two  of  his  vital  lluid;  for  I  remembered 
distinctly  a  similar  accident  happening  to  my  fath- 
er's old  friend,  Southcote,  in  England,  years  ago ; 
and  although  he  sued  the  proprietor  of  the  house, 
alleging  that  he  (the  landlord)  was  possessed  of  an 
hotel,  into  which  he  had  invited  S.  as  a  visitor,  and 


1  Rogina  v.  I^ymcr,  L.  U.  2  Q.  D.  D.  130. 

2  Deuuctt  V.  MuUor,  5  T.  11.  27(3.    See,  also,  Ilouscr  v.  TuUy, 
62  Pa.  bt.  92. 


ACCIDENTS,    ROOMS,    DOGS. 


37 


in  "which  there  was  a,  c:hiss  (h)or  which  it  was 
necessary  for  lilin  (S.)  to  open  for  tho  ])urposo  of 
leaving,  ami  whicli  lie,  hy  tho  permission  of  the 
owner,  and  with  liis  knowledge,  and  Avithont  any 
warning  from  him,  lawfnlly  o])ene(l,  for  thei)nrnoso 
aforesaid,  as  n  door  which  was  in  ii  proper  condi- 
tion to  he  opened,  yet,  hy  and  througli  tlio  careless* 
ness,  negligence,  and  defanlt  of  defenih'nit,  the  door 
was  then  in  an  insecure  and  dangerous  condition, 
and  unlit  to  he  opened  ;  and,  hy  reason  of  said  door 
beiuLC  in  such  insecure  and  danf^erous  condition,  and 
of  the  then  carelessness,  negligence,  default,  and 
improper  conduct  of  tho  defendant  in  that  behalf,  a 
largo  piece  of  glass  fell  from  the  door,  and  wounded 
Southcote — yet,  although  he  said  all  this,  tho  Court 
of  Exchequer,  with  Pollock,  C.  B ,  at  its  head,  de- 
cided that  no  cause  of  action  against  tho  proprietor 
was  disclosed.^  It  was  considered  that  a  visitor  in 
a  house  was  in  the  same  position  as  any  other  mem- 
ber of  the  establishment,  so  far  as  regards  tho  negli- 
gence of  tho  master  or  his  servants,  and  nnist  take 
liis  chance  of  accidents  with  tho  rest.^  Baron 
i^ramwell,  liowever,  well  said  that  where  a  person 
is  in  tho  house  of  another,  either  on  business  or  for 
any  other  lawful  purpose,  ho  has  a  right  to  expect 
that  the  owner  will  take  reasonable  care  to  protect 
lam  from  injury,  and  will  not  leave  trap-doors 
open  down  which  ho  might  fall,  or  tako  him  into  a 
garden  among  si)riiig-guns  and  man-traps.*^ 

At  dinner — to  which,  in  addition  to  the  various 


iSoutlicotG  V.  Stanley,  1  Iliirl.  &  N.  2i7. 

3  Ibid. 
4. 


Tcr  rollock,  B.  C. 


ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,   DOGS. 


H 


'. 


{ 


i 


condiments  provided  by  mine  host,  we  ourselvc3 
broiiglitthat  best  of  sauces,  bun2;er — there  was  seat- 
ed at  a  neicrliboriu'j'  table  JNIrs.  Deadhead,  a  friend 
of  tlie  ])roitrietorV,  as  I  liavc  said,  a  lady  of  con- 
siderable amplitude  of  j>erson,  and  extensively  be- 
decked Avith  the  diamonds  of  Golconda,  the  gold 
of  Australia,  the  hxce  of  Lyons,  the  feiithers  of 
Soutli  Africa,  the  millinery  of  New  York,  and 
attired  in  a  silk  dress  of  most  fashionable  shape, 
color,  and  inake.  As  a  waiter  was  helping  this  very 
conspicuous  member  of  society  to  a  plate  of  soup, 
he  caught  his  foot  in  the  extensive  train,  stumbled, 
and  i)laced  the  soup  in  her  ladyshi[)'s  lap — minus 
tlio  i»late.  Great  was  the  commotion,  loud  the  re- 
proaches, abject  the  a])ologies. 

My  wife  thereupon  whispered  to  me  that  the 
upset  would  not  have  mattered  mucli  if  the  soup 
was  any  like  hers. 

"  AVhy  not?"  I  queried,  in  some  surprise,  and 
anxious  to  learn  as  speedily  as  possible  the  chemi- 
cal peculiarities  of  a  lady's  toilet. 

"Because  then  the  dress  would  have  been  turned 
into  a  watered  silk,"  was  the  only  answer  I  got. 

It  was  some  time  before  I  saw  the  point,  and 
then  I  smiled  a  dreary,  weary  smile,  and  remarked 
that  I  hoped  the  lady  was  able  to  re-dress  herself, 
for  I  thought  that  she  could  get  no  redress  from 
the  ])roprietor — at  least,  that  legal  luminary,  Pol- 
lock,  C.  B.,  so  insinuated  on  one  occasion.^ 

My  wife  grew  fidgety  because  the  waiters  were 
Bomcwhat  tardy  in  filling  her  orders. 


1  Soutlicote  V.  Stanley,  supra. 


ACCJ.DEN1S,   ROOMS,   DOGS. 


39 


"  Look,'  i^lic  said,  *'  at  those  lazv  fellows  !  Half  i\ 
dozen  of  them  doing  nothing,  while  we  are  kei>t 
waitini;]:,  still  waitin'j:." 

"DoiiI)tlcss,"  I  replied,  "they  liavo  been  deeply 
impressed  with  the  truth  of  that  grand  old  Miltonio 
line : 

*  Tbey  also  servo  who  only  stand  to  wait.'  " 

Wliile  taking  my  post-prandial  smoke,  my  inter- 
rogator of  the  previous  evening  again  a])proaehed 
mc,  and  asked,  in  a  grumbling  voiee,  if  the  landlord 
had  a  right  to  turn  him  out  of  one  room,  and  put 
him  into  another. 

"  Oh,  yes,"  I  replied ;  "  he  has  the  sole  right  of  se- 
lecting the  apartment  for  each  guest,  and,  if  he  finds 
it  expedient,  may  change  the  room  and  assign  liis 
patron  another.  There  is  no  imi»lied  contract  that 
one  to  whom  a  iiarticular  room  has  been  i^iven  shall 
retain  it  so  long  as  he  chooses  to  i)ay  for  it.^  You 
pay  your  money,  but  you  don't  take  your  choice." 

"  But  I  liked  the  room  so  much,"  said  Mr.  Com- 
plaining Grumbler. 

"It  matters  not.  The  proprietor  is  not  bound  to 
comply  with  your  caprices.2  When  you  go  to  an 
hotel  you  have  only  a  mere  casement  of  sleeping  in 
one  room,  and  eating  and.  drinking  in  another,  as 
Judge  Manic  once  remarked."  3 

"Can  he  turn  mo  out  of  the  house  altogether?" 

"Certainly  not,  if  you  behave  yourself;  unless, 

1  Doyle  V.  Walker,  2G  Q.  B.  (Ont.)  502. 

2  i^ell  V.  Kuislit,  8  :Mees.  &  W.  27(]. 
SLano  v.  Dixon,  o  M.  G.  &  S.  784. 


40 


ACCIDENTS,   nOOM;?,   DOQS. 


indeed,  you  neglect  or  refuse  to  pay  your  bill  upon 
reasonable  deuiand."  ^ 

"I  am  going  away  by  the  night  train,"  said  Mr. 
CO.,  "and  1  did  not  wish  to  go  to  bed;  so  he 
insisted  upon  liking  my  room,  and  told  me  I  might 
stay  in  the  ])arlor  until  I  left." 

"And  quite  right,  too.  Although  he  cannot  mako 
you  go  to  bed,  or  turn  you  out  of  doors  because  you 
do  not  choose  to  sleej),  still  you  cannot  insist  ni)on 
liaving  a  bed-room  in  which  to  sit  up  all  night,  if 
you  are  furnished  with  another  room  pro2)er  for 
that  purpose."  - 

"  I  intend  returning  in  the  afternoon ;  can  lio 
refuse  to  take  care  of  my  traps  while  I  am  ab- 
sent?" 

"  I  fancy  not,  for  a  temporary  absence  does  not 
affect  the  rights  of  a  guest.*^  Long  since,  it  was 
laid  down  .as  law  that  if  one  comes  to  an  inn  with 
a  hamper,  in  which  he  has  goods,  and  goes  away, 
leaving  it  witli  the  Iiost,  and  in  a  few  days  comes 
back,  but  in  the  meantime  his  goods  are  stolen,  ho 
has  no  action  against  the  liost,  for  at  the  time  of 
stealing  he  was  not  liis  guest,  and  by  keeping  tlio 
li:nuper  the  innkeeper  had  no  benefit,  and  therefore 
is  not  charijeable  with  the  loss  of  it.  But  it  would 
be  otherwise  if  the  man  is  absent  but  from  morn  to 
dewy  eve;*  and  where,  in  New  York  State,  a 
guest,  after  spending  a  few  days  at  an  liotel,  gave 
Up  his  room,  left  his  valise — taking  a  check  for  it— • 

iDoylo  V.  AValkcr,  supra. 

2  Fell  i\  Knight,  8  Mecs.  &  W.  27G. 

8  McDonald  r.  Edgerton,  5  Barb.  (N".  Y.)  5G0. 

4  Bacon's  Abr.  Inns,  Cj  Gelley  v.  Clark,  Cro.  J.  188. 


I 


ACCIDENTS,    nOOMS,    DOGS. 


41 


I 


.es 
Iho 
of 
Iho 
I  re 
.1.1 
to 
a 
Ive 


I 


an<l  was  ffonc  ciglit  days,  williout  payinG^  his  bill; 
oil  retuniini,',  ho  roi^istcMvd  his  n;iino,  took  a  room, 
and  called  for  his  baix,  when  another  appeared  in 
its  ]>lace,  h:ivin;j^  the  duplicate  check  attached  :  the 
Court  of  Common  Pleas  lield  that,  wlietlier  tlie  case 
was  considered  as  an  ordinary  bailment,  or  as  ])rop- 
erty  in  an  innkeepers'  hands,  on  which  he  had  a 
lien,  he  was  bound  to  exercise  duo  care  and  dili- 
gence, and  that  lie  must  account  for  the  loss,  the 
chanD^ini^  of  the  check  being  evidence  of  negli- 
gence." 1 

I  rose  to  leave  the  room,  for  I  was  growing 
weary  of  this  catechetical  performance ;  but  my 
questioner's  budget  was  not  yet  exhausted,  and,  as 
I  made  mv  exit,  I  heard  him  sav  : 

*'  Pardon  me — one  inquiry  more  :  I  was  at  the  St. 
Nicholas  last  w^eek  when  it  was  burnt  down,  an<l  I 
lost  some  of  my  clothes.  Is  the  owner  liable  to 
make  Lfood  the  damaijo  sustained?"^ 

I  heeded  not,  and  went  to  seek  my  wife.  After 
some  search  through  the  mac^niiicent  (Irawini;- 
rooms  of  our  sumptuous  hotel,  I  at  length  found 
her  in  an  elegant  parlor,  seated  at  a  piano,  and  gen- 
tly playing  some  sweet  melodies.  As  I  a])proached, 
she  motioned  me  to  bo  cautious.  When  I  reached 
her,  I  saw  that  a  large  spider  was  stationed  at  the 
edge  of  the  j)iano  cover,  api)arently  drinking  in 
the  harmony  of  sweet  sounds  to  the  utmost  extent 
of  his  arachnidian  nature.  My  advent  broke  the 
spell,  and   away   the   little   hairy   darkey   rushed, 


1  Murray  r.  Clarke,  2  Daly,  (N.  Y.)  102. 

2  Tor  answer,  see  page  loy. 


42 


ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,    DOGS. 


hand  over  hand,  up  liis  tiny  cable  of  four  thousand 
twisted  strands,  till  he  was  safe  in  the  cornice  of 
the  ceiling.  My  wife  was  charmed  at  her  novel 
listener,  and  exclaimed:  "Did  you  ever  see  such  a 
thin-?" 

"  No,  but  I  have  read  of  it,"  I  re])lied.  "  jMichelet, 
in  his  charming  book  on  '  The  Insect,'  tells  that 
a  little  musical  prodigy,  who  at  eight  astounded 
and  stupefied  his  hearers  by  his  mastery  of  the  vio- 
lin, was  forced  to  practice  long  weary  hours  in  soli- 
tude. There  was  a,  spider,  however,  in  the  rooin, 
which,  entranced  by  the  melodious  strains,  grew 
more  and  more  familiar,  until  at  length  it  would 
climb  upon  the  mobile  arm  that  held  the  bow.  Lit- 
tle Berthome  needed  no  other  listener  to  kindle  his 
enthusiasjn.  But  a  cruel  step-mother  appeared  on 
the  scene  suddenly  one  day,  and  with  a  single  blow 
of  her  slipper  annihilated  the  octopedal  audience. 
The  child  fell  to  the  ground  in  Ji  deathlike  faint, 
and  in  three  months  was  a  corpse — dead  from  a 
broken  heart." 

"How  sad!"  said  Mrs.  Lawyer,  in  husky  tones, 
as  she  blew  her  nose  in  n  suspicious  manner. 

"  Then  there  was  also  the  musical  spider  of  Pelli- 
—    A  little  snarlevow  of  ji  doij  here  rushed 


5) 


son 

in  and  barked  so  vigorously  and  furiously  that  my 
wife  never  heard  more  of  that  spider.  I  tried  to 
turn  the  wretched  creature  out,  but  a  puppy  fol- 
lowing— the  owner — requested  me  to  leave  it  alone. 
I  must  say  that  I  heartily  concur  with  Mr.  Justice 
Manisty  (and  I  sincerely  trust  that  my  concurrence 
will  afford  encouragement  to  the  learned  gentleman 


% 


ACCIDENTS,    ROOMS,    DOOS. 


48 


ill  liis  arduous  oHioc)  iu  lioMiiiuj  tluit  a  guest  cannot, 
uiKk'r  any  circuinNt  inccs,  insist  U])on  brint^ini^  a  dog 
into  any  room  in  a  liotcl  wiicro  other  guests  are. 
On  tlie  same  oecasion  on  which  Judg*;  iNIanisty  cx- 
j)resse(l  liis  views,  Kelly,  C  !>.,  remarked  that  lie 
would  not  lay  down  the  rule  }»osirively  that  under 
no  eireumstaiiees  would  a  guest  have  a  right  to 
bring  a  dog  into  an  inn;  there  might  ])ossil)ly,  lio 
observed,  b  •  circumstances  in  which,  if  a  person 
came  to  an  inn  with  a  (h>g,  and  tho  iimkeeper  re- 
fused to  |)ut  up  the  animal  in  any  stable  or  out- 
building, and  there  was  nothiieji:  that  could  make 
llie  canine  a  cause  of  alarm  or  an  annoyance  to  oth- 
ers, its  owner  miij-ht  l)e  iustified  in  briuij-ing  it  into 
the  house.  His  lordship,  however,  considered  that 
a  landlord  liad  a  right  to  efusj  to  ])rovide  for  tho 
wants  of  a  visitor  who  insiste(l  upon  coming  with 
two  very  large  St.  I]ernar<l  mastiffs,  one  a  lierco 
creatun^,  that  had  to  be  muzzled,  the  other  a  <log 
of  a  rentier  nature,  l)at  somewhat  given  to  vhat 
bad  habit  referred  to  in  those  l*roverbs  of  Solomon 
which  the  men  of  llezekiah,  king  of  Judali,  copied 
out,  and  by  the  apostle  St.  Peter  in  his  second 
epistle.^ 

^  «  *  «  « 

The  next  day  there  was  a  gentle  ripple  of  excite- 
ment pervading  the  house.  Two  cases  of  hirceny 
came  to  light,  and  made  the  guests  communicative 
and  talkative. 

In  one  case  a  Mr.  Blank,  his  wife,  and  amiable 
and  accomplished  daughter,  (I  can  vouch  for  the 

1  Ri  gina  v.  Rymer,  L.  R.  2  Q.  D.  D.  141. 


i 


III 


! 


!  I 


44 


ACCIDENTS,  ROOMS,   DOGS. 


correctness  of  these  adjectives ;  for  I  liad  a  very 
pleasant  chat — to  call  it  by  a  mild  name — with  her 
one  day,  while  JMrs.  Lawyer  was  lying  down  after 
dinner)  had  a  sitting-room  and  bedroom  oi  suite, 
so  arranged  that  when  the  sittinuj-room  door  was 
open  one  could  see  the  entrances  into  both  bed- 
rooms. Mrs.  B.,  being  in  her  room,  laid  upon  the 
bed  her  reticule,  in  which  was  a  by  no  means  des- 
picable sum  of  money.  She  then  rejoined  her  spouse 
and  daughter  in  the  sitting-room,  leaving  the  door 
between  the  two  apartments  open.  Some  five 
minutes  after,  she  sent  Miss  Blank — who  was  not 
too  i^roud  to  run  a  short  errand  for  her  kind  mam- 
ma— for  the  l»ag;  but  lo!  it  was  gone,  and  was 
never  again  found  by  a  member  of  the  Blank  fam- 
ily ;  for 

"In  A-ain  tlioy  searched  each  cranny  of  the  liouse, 
Each  gapinjT  chiuk  impervious  to  a  mouse." 

The  other  robbery  was  of  the  goods  of  a  young 
Englishman,  who,  the  previous  evening,  had  been 
boastfully  exhibiting  some  sovereigns  in  the  smok- 
ing-room. AVhen  he  went  to  bed  he  had  placed 
h.s  watch  and  money  on  a  table  in  his  room,  left 
his  door  open,  and,  on  morning  dawning,  was  sur- 
j^rised  to  lind  his  time-piece  and  cash  vanished  with 
the  early  dew.  Other  people  would  liavc  been 
surprised  if  they  had  remained. 

I  fell  into  conversation  on  the  subject  of  tlioso 
depredations  with  a  gentleman  whom  I  afterward 
discovered  to  be  a  member  of  Lincoln's  Inn,  a  j^laco 
Avhicli  bears  very  little  resemblance  to  our  American 
hotels. 


ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,    DOGS. 


45 


"  'Tis  very  strange,"  said  Mr.  Learned  Intlielaw, 
"liow  liistory  roi)eat3  itself,  even  in  insigniiicaiit 
matters." 

I  bowed,  and  remarked  :  "A  very  sensible  man 
once  observed  that  there  was  nothing  new  nnder 
the  snn." 

"He  did  not  live,  liowever,  in  this  our  nineteenth 
century,"  was  tlic  reply.  "But  wliat  I  was  going 
to  say  was  tliat  there  are  two  cases  reported  in  our 
Englisli  hiw-books  exactly  simihir  to  the  two  occur- 
rences of  to-day." 

"That  is  singular.     AVliat  were  the  decisions?" 

"  In  the  reticule  case,^  the  hotel-keeper  was  lield 
responsible  for  the  loss;  in  the  otlier,-  it  was  con- 
sidered that  the  guest  liad  been  guilty  of  negligenco 
so  as  to  absolve  the  host.  You  know  tliat  with  us 
it  was  decided,  about  the  time  that  Columbus  was 
discovering  America,  that  an  innkeeper  is  liable 
for  the  goods  of  his  guests  if  damaged  or  stolen 
while  under  his  care  as  an  innkee})er  ;'^  and  in  such 
cases  he  is  not  freed  from  his  grave  responsibility 
by  showing  that  neither  himself  nor  liis  servants 
are  to  blame,  but  in  every  event  he  is  liable  unlesg 
tlie  loss  or  injury  is  caused  by  the  act  of  God,  or  the 
queen's  enemies,  or  the  fault,  direct  or  implied,  of 
the  guest  ^ — and  that  even  though  the  i)()or  man  hag 
not  only  not  been  neglii-ent,  but  lias  even  been  dili- 
gent  in  his  efforts  to  save  the  property  of  his  guest."  ^ 

1  Kent  V.  Shuckard,  2  Barn.  &  Adol.  803. 

2  Cashill  V.  ^yYi<rht,  (J  El.  &  15.  89. 
8  Year  Book,  10  Iloury  VI I,  2i;. 

4  Morgan  v.  llavcy,  G  llurl.  &  X.  2G5. 
« IbiJ. 


ii 


; 


•  I 


40 


ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,   DOGS. 


"The  rule  is  the  same  with  us,"i  I  replied,  "and 
it  extends  to  all  j^evsonal  property  the  guest  brings 
witli  him,  whatever  mav  be  the  value  or  the  kind.2 
And  if  the  proprietor  liappens  to  be  absent  he  is  still 
liabh;  for  tlie  conduct  of  those  lie  has  left  in  charge.3 
Innkeepers,  as  well  as  common  carriers,  are  re- 
garded as  insurers  of  the  ])roperty  committed  to 
tlieir  care.  The  law  rests  on  tlie  same  princii)les 
of  policy  here  as  in  England  and  other  countries, 
and  is  wise  and  reasonable."  4 

"  But  it  seems  very  severe  upon  innkeepers,"  re- 
marked a  by-stander. 

"  Rigorous  as  the  law  may  seem,  my  dear  sir," 
replied  my  friend  of  Lincoln's  Inn,  "  and  hard  as  it 
may  actually  be  in  one  or  two  particular  instances, 
yet  it  is  founded  on  the  great  principle  of  public 
utility  to  which  all  private  considerations  ought  to 
yidld;  for  travelers,  who  must  be  numerous  in  a 
rich  and  commercial  country,  are  obliged  to  rely 
almost  implicitly  on  the  good  faitli  of  innkeepers, 
whose  education  and  morals  are  often  none  of  the 
best,  and  who  might  liave  frequent  op})ortunities 
for  associating  with  ruffians  and  i)ilferers;  while  the 
injured  guest  could  seldom  or  never  obtain  legal 
l)roof  of  such  combinations,  or  even  of  their  negli- 
gence, if  no  actual  fraud  had  been  committed  by 
them."^ 

"  WJiat  did  the  old  Roman  law  say  on  the  sub- 

1  Sliaw  V.  Berry,  31  Me.  478;  Sibley  r.  Aldrich,  33  X.  II.  553. 

2  Kellogg  y\  Swoenoy,  1  Lans.  (X.  Y.)  31)7. 
a  Ilockwell  v.  Troctor,  .'il)  C,a.  10."). 

4  Wilde,  J.,  ISIason  v.  Thompson,  9  Pick.  280. 

5  Joues  on  Bailments,  i^p,  \)o-[)kj. 


ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,    DOGS. 


47 


jcct?"  inquire(i  old  Dr.  Dryasdust,  who  considered 
that  nothiiiix  done  or  said  on  Iho  liither  side  of  the 
Middle  A^XQS  was  wortliy  of  consideration. 

"They,  sir,  wero  equally  anxious  to  protect  the 
puhlic  against  dishonest  publicans,  an<l  by  their 
edicts  gave  !in  action  against  them  if  the  goods  of 
travelers  were  lost  or  hurt  by  any  means  except 
damno  fataJi,  or  by  inevitabl'*,  accident;  and  even 
then  Ulpian  intimates  that  innkeepers  were  not  al- 
together restrained  from  knavish  practices  or  sus- 
picious neglect."  i 

"Still,"  said  the  by-stander  aforesaid,  "I  do  not 
see  how  the  reticule  can  be  considered  to  have  been 
under  our  hmdlord's  care." 

"To  render  him  liable  it  is  not  necessary  that  the 
goods  be  placed  in  liis  special  kee})ing,  or  brought 
to  his  special  notice.  If  they  bo  in  the  inn,  brought 
there  in  an  ordinary  and  reasonable  way  by  a  guest, 
it  is  suliicient  to  charge  the  proprietor."  - 

"Yes,"  I  chimed  in,  "and  it  does  not  matter  in 
what  part  of  the  liotel  the  goods  arc  kept,  wlu^ther 
*  ui)-stairs,  or  down-stairs,  or  in  the  lady's  chaml)er': 
wliile  they  are  anywhere  within  it,  they  are  under 
the  care  of  jjoniface,  and  he  is  responsible  for  their 
safe  custody,  lie  is  equally  liable,  whether  bag- 
gage is  put  in  a  bedroom,  a  liorsc  handed  over  to 
the  care  of  the  hostler,^  or  goods  jjlaced  in  an  out- 


1  "SVliarton  on  Innkeepors,  p.  8S. 

2Ciiyle's  Case;  rackard  v.  Northrraft,  2  yhii.  (Ky.)  4^,0; 
Korcrosa  r.  Xorcross,  53  Me.  Vh\\  lUirrows  ?'.  Trul»tr,  21  Md. 
o20;  ^Ic'Donald  i\  Edgertoii,  5  Barb.  5o0;  Coykcudall  v.  Ea- 
tuu,  rj5  liarb.  188. 

3  llalleubako  v.  Fish,  8  AVcnd.  547. 


;: 


•! 


i 

i    -J, 

i 


H 


It! 


m 


48 


ACCIDENTS,    ROOMS,    DOGS. 


house  beloiiGcinu:  to  tlic  establishment  and  used  for 
that  sort  of  articles.i  My  friend  Epps,  on  one  oc- 
casion, went  to  an  inn  down  in  Mississippi,  and  liad 
his  trunk  talvcn  to  Ins  bedroom,  and  it  beiuL^  broken 
into  at  night  and  the  money  purloined,  the  innkeeper 
was  hekf liable."  2 

"A  friend  of  mine,"  said  the  English  gent,  "who 
was  in  the  cmjjloy  of  a  sweet  fellow  of  the  name  of 
Candy,  on  arriving  at  an  inn  gave  his  luggage  to 
Boots,  who  placed  one  package  in  the  hall ;  after- 
wards the  servant  wished  to  carry  it  into  the  com- 
mercial room,  but  the  owner  requested  him  to  leave 
it  where  it  was;  the  parcel  mysteriously  disapj)ear- 
cd,  and  the  innkeeper  had  the  pleasure  of  p.'iying 
for  it."  3 

"In  fact,  I  believe  an  innkeeper  cannot  make  his 
guest  take  care  of  his  own  goods ;  '^  nor  is  a  traveler 
bound  to  deposit  his  valuables  in  the  hotel  safe, 
even  though  he  may  know  that  there  is  one  kei)t 
for  the  reception  of  such  articles,  and  there  is  a 
regulation  of  the  house  requiring  articles  of  value 
to  be  so  deposited,"^  I  remarked. 

"Are  you  not  stating  that  rather  broadly?" 
questioned  my  legal  confrere. 

"No  Vatican  Council  has  proclaimed  me  infalli- 
ble. I  know  full  well  that  when  the  poet  said  '  to 
err  is  human,'  he  spoke  trulh.     Of  course,  I  am 

1  Cliuto  V.  AYigf];ins.  14  Jolm3.  175. 

2  Epps  v.  Hinds,  27  Miss.  (iu7;  Simon  v.  Miller,  7  La.  An.  3G8. 
8  Cumly  V.  Spencer,  a  Fost.  &  F.  oO;;. 

4  Bennett  v.  Mellor,  5  Term.  Hep.  273. 

6  Johnson  V.  llicliardson,  17  111.  002;  Pijjer  v.  Ilall,  14  La. 
An.  o2i;  rrolUet  v.  Uall,  Ibid.  524. 


ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,   DOGS. 


49 


speaking  only  of  the  rule  in  States  in  wliich  there 
is  no  special  law  or  statute  on  the  point,  limiting 
the  liahility  of  publicans,"  I  rej)liecl. 

"I  think,  however,"  said  Mr.  Inthelaw,  the 
Englishman,  *' that  it  has  been  hel.l  that  the  inn- 
keeper may  refuse  to  be  responsible  for  tho  safe 
custody  of  the  guest's  goods  unless  they  are  put  in 
a  certain  place,  and  if  the  guest  objects  to  this,  the 
host  will  be  exonerated  in  case  of  loss.^  And  a 
guest  who  has  actual  notice  of  a  regulation  of  the 
inn  as  to  the  deposit  of  valuables,  and  has  not  com- 
plied with  it,  takes  tho  risk  of  loss  happening  from 
any   cause,   except,   of  course,   tho    actual   sins  of 

omission  and  commission  of  the  landlord  or  his 
servants."  2 

"And  very  reasonably,"  remarked  a  by-stander. 

"But  clear  and  unmistakable  notice  of  these  reg- 
ulations restricting  the  publican's  liability  must  cer- 
tainly be  given,*' 3  I  asserted.  "And,"  I  continued, 
"I  believe  a  distinction  has  been  taken, and  it  appears 
to  rest  upon  good  reason,  between  those  effects  of  a 
traveler  not  immediately  requisite  to  his  comfort, 
and  those  essential  to  his  personal  convenieuce,  and 
which  it  is  necessary  that  he  should  have  constantly 
about  him;  so  that,  though  personally  notified,  he 
is  not  bound  to  deposit  the  latter  with  the  innkeeper. 


1  Saunders  v.  Spencer,  Dyer,  2C)(]a;  Wilson  v.  Ilulpin,  00 
IIow.  Pr.  IJ-i;  Packard  v.  Nurthcruft,  2  ^lot.  (Ky.)'13J;  TuUer 
V.  Coats,  18  Ohio  Si.  .043. 

2  Stanton  v.  Lelaud,  4  E.  D.  Smith,  88;  Kellogg  v,  Sweeney, 
1  l.ans.  N.  Y.  307. 

8  Van  Wyck  v.  Howard,  12  IIow.  Pr.  U7. 

a. 


50 


ACCIDENTS,  ROOMS    DOGS. 


l! 


And,  perhaps,  this  distinction  will  explain  the  ap- 
parently contradictory  decisions."^ 

"  Doubtless  the  notice  must  bo  clear.  Even  a 
printed  notification  is  not  sufficient.  It  must  be 
brought  liome  to  the  mind  of  the  guest,  or  at  least 
to  liis  knowledge,  before  ho  enters  and  takes  pos- 
session of  his  room,  so  that,  if  he  does  not  like  the 
regulations,  he  may  go  clsewherc.2  In  one  case,  the 
register  was  headed  with  the  notice,  '  Money  and 
valuables,  it  is  agreed,  shall  bo  placed  in  the  safe 
in  the  office ;  otherwise,  the  proprietor  will  not  be 
liable  for  loss ' ;  and  Mr.  Bernstein  duly  entered  his 
name  in  the  book ;  still  he  was  not  held  bound  by 
the  notice,  as  there  was  no  proof  that  it  was  seen 
or  assented  to  by  him."  3 

By-stander  here  remarked  :  "  My  father  kept  an 
inn  in  New  York  State,  and  once  told  a  man  of  tho 
name  of  Purvis,  when  ho  arrived  at  the  house,  that 
there  was  a  safe  for  valuables,  and  taat  ho  would 
not  be  responsible  for  his  unless  they  were  placed 
in  it.  Purvis,  however,  neglected  the  caution,  and 
left  82,000  in  gold  in  a  trunk  in  his  bed-room,  locked 
the  door,  and  gave  the  key  to  my  father.  Somo 
thief  broke  through  and  stole,  and  Purvis  tried  to 
make  the  old  gentleman  responsible  for  tlie  theft ; 
but  the  court  did  not  agree  with  him,  and  consid- 
ered that  he  alone  must  bear  the  loss."  4 

1  Profilet  V.  Hall.  IG  La.  An.  524. 

2  Morgan  v.  Ravey,  30  L.  J.  Excli.  131,  per  Wilde,  B. ;  G 
Hurl.  &  N.  2G5. 

3  Bernstein  v.  Sweeny,  33  N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.  271.  See,  also, 
Kentv.  Midland  Rwy.  L.  R,  10  Q.  B.  1;  Henderson  v.  BtteV" 
enson,  L.  11.  2  Scotch  &  D.  470. 

4  Purvis  V.  Colemau.  21  N.  Y.  111. 


ACCIDENTS,    ROOMS,   DOGS. 


61 


ap. 


G 


"  Tho  host  is  not  Ihible  for  the  loss  of  goods  if, 
at  the  time  of  their  disappearance,  they  wcro  in 
the  cxchisive  i)osscssion  of  tlieir  o\vner,i  and  it  will 
generally  1)0  left  to  an  intelligent  jury  to  say 
whether  or  not  the  articles  were  in  the  sole  custody 
of  the  guest,"  ^  remarked  Mr.  Inthclaw. 

"  Wimt  do  you  nieun  ?  "  asked  one. 

*'  For  instance,  where  a  Brummagem  man,  trav- 
eling for  orders,  came  to  an  inn  Avith  three  boxes 
of  goods ;  the  travelers'  room  did  not  meet  Avith 
his  approbation,  so  ho  asked  for  another  one  up 
stairs,  where  ho  might  display  his  wares.  The  lady 
of  the  house  gave  him  one  with  a  key  in  the  door, 
and  told  him  to  keep  it  locked.  The  boxes  were 
taken  to  the  new  apartment,  and  after  dining  in 
the  travelers'  room,  the  Brummagem  gent — who 
seemed  inclined  to  put  on  airs — took  his  precious 
self  into  the  new  room,  and  there  also  ho  took  Ids 
wine.  After  his  repast,  he  exhibited  his  wares— 
chiefly  jewelry — to  a  customer,  and  in  the  cool  of 
the  evening  went  out  to  see  the  town,  leaving  the 
door  unlocked,  and  the  key  outside.  (So  the  reporter 
tells  US,  thouizh  whv  he  need  have  taken  the  trouble 
to  leave  the  door  unlocked  if  the  key  was  on  tho 
outside,  or  the  key  outside  if  the  door  was  unlocked, 
I  cannot  understand,)  While  he  was  away,  two 
of  his  boxes  went  away,  too.  He  sued  tho  proprie- 
tor of  the  house  for  dama'jjes,  but  ffot  nothinir.  He 
applied  for  a  new  trial,  but  with  like  success.    Lord 

iFarnswortli  v.  Packwood,  1  Stark.  240;  Packard  r.  North- 
craft,  2  Met.  (Ky.)  43i);  Vauoo  v.  Throckmorton,  5  Bush, 
(Ky.)41. 

2  Farnsworth  v.  Packwood,  supra. 


52 


ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,    DOGS. 


lijiii 


i 


Ellenborougli  remarked  that  it  seemed  to  him  that 
the  care  of  the  goods  in  a,  room  used  for  the  exhibi- 
tion of  the  goods  to  persons  over  wliom  the  inn- 
keeper couhl  have  no  clieck  or  control  liardly  fell 
witliin  the  limits  of  his  duty  as  an  innkeeper;  tliat 
the  room  was  not  merely  intrusted  to  our  friend  in 
the  ordinary  character  of  a  guest  frequenting  an 
imi,  but  that  he  must  be  understood  as  liaving 
special  charge  of  it.  And  anotlier  learned  judge 
gave  it  as  his  sentiments  tliut  the  traveler  should  bo 
taken  to  have  received  the  favor  of  tlie  i)rivato 
room  cum  oncre  ;  that  is,  he  accepted  it  upon  tlio 
condition  of  taking  the  goods  under  his  own  care."  l 
"But,"  I  said,  "of  course,  simply  ordering  goods 
to  be  placed  in  a  particular  room  is  not  such  a  tak- 
ing under  one's  own  care  as  to  absolve  an  innkeeper 
from  his  responsibility .2  I  recollect  a  case  wliere  a 
traveler,  on  arriving,  requested  his  impedimenta,  as 
old  Ca3sar  used  to  say,  to  be  taken  to  the  commer- 
cial room ;  they  were,  and  they  were  stolen,  and 
the  innkeeper  was  held  bound  to  recoup  the  man, 
although  he  proved  that  tlie  usual  practice  of  the 
hoiise  was  to  [tlace  the  luggage  in  the  ^^juest's  room, 
and  not  in  the  commercial  room,  unless  an  express 
order  Avas  given  to  the  contrary.  The  chief  justice 
remarked  that  if  mine  host  had  intended  not  to  bo 
responsible  unless  his  guests  chose  to  have  their 
goods  i)laced  in  their  sleeping  apartments,  or  such 
other  place  as  to  him  might  seem  meet,  he  should 
have  told  them  so."  3 


1  r>ur2jes3  V.  Clements,  4  INIaiilo  &  S.  r.07. 

2  Pacicarcl  v.  Nortlicruf t,  2  Met.  ( Ky. )  439. 
8  lUcbmoud  t'.  Smith,  3  Barn.  &  C.  i). 


ACCIDENTS,    ROOMS,   DOGS. 


53 


Bv-standor  obsorvcd  that  llio  law  Rcemcd  incon- 
sistciit,  us  tl)(;rc3  did  not  appear  to  bo  iiiucli  differ- 
eiico  between  llie  two  cases. 

*OIr.  Justice  Iloh'ovd  distlncruishcd  tlie  latter 
from  the  former  case  by  sayinij^  tliat  the  Dirming- 
ham  man  asked  to  have  a  room  wliieli  lie  used  for 
tlie  pui'poscs  of  trade,  not  merely  as  a  guest  in  tho 
inn.^  In  Wisconsin,  it  was  held  that  the  retention 
by  a  guest  of  money  or  valuables  upon  his  person 
was  not  such  exclusive  control  as  to  exonerate  an 
innkeei)er  from  liability,  if  the  loss  was  not  induced, 
by  the  nc^gligence  or  misconduct  of  the  guest,"  ^  re- 
marked one  who  knew  whereof  he  allirmed. 

"An  hotel-keeper  is  of  course  liable  for  the  con- 
duct of  another  guest,  jdaced  in  a  room  already  oc- 
cupied, without  the  consent  of  tho  occupilIltx3  And 
where  a  guest  left  his  <loor  unloclced,  because  ho 
was  tol  I  that  he  must  either  do  so  or  get  np  in  the 
night  and  open  it,  as  others  had  to  share  the  room 
with  him,  the  innkeeper  was  held  liable  for  every- 
thing lost."'^ 

Tliis  very  learned  and  intensely  luiinteresting 
discussion  was  here  summarily  put  a  stop  to  by  the 
appearance  in  the  room  of  several  ladies  who  had 
respectively  claims  upon  the  respective  talkers,  and 
who  were  ready  and  willing  to  inspect  the  inside 
of  the  luncheon  hall. 

"How  singularly  our  hours  of  refection  havo 
changed,"  remarked  Mr.  L.  Inthelaw.     "You  re- 


ti 


1  radimond  v.  Smith,  8  Barn.  &  C.  0. 

2  Jailei  v.  Cardinal,  o5  Wis.  118. 

3  Dessaucr  v.  Baker,  1  "Wilson  (Ind.)  429. 
♦  Milford  V.  Wesley,  1  Wilson  (Ind.)  110. 


pp 


54 


ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,   DOGS. 


I' 


r 


k 


member  that  in  the  sixteenth  century  the  saying  was : 

*  Lever  a  cinq,  diner  a  nouf, 
Sonper  a  ciiK].  couclier  a  nouf, 
Fait  vivro  d'ans  nonanto  et  ueuf.' 

"And  even  in  the  early  days  of  tlie  reign  of 
Louis  Xiy  tlie  dinner  liourof  tlie  court  was  eleven 
o'clock,  or  noon  at  the  latest." 

'•  Yes,"  I  replied,  "I  have  noticed  that  the  his« 
torians  say  that  one  of  the  causes  whicii  hastened 
the  deatli  of  Louis  XII  was  his  chanu^iiiLj:  his  dinner 
liour  from  nine  to  twelve  at  the  solicitation  of  his 
wife.     What  a  line  house  this  is  ! " 

"  Well,  sir,"  was  the  response,  "believe  a  stranger 
and  a  foreigner  when  he  tells  you  that,  good  as  aro 
some  of  the  hotels  in  Europe,  the  American  ones 
surpass  them  all  both  in  size  and  in  general  fitness 
of  pur[)ose." 

"I  am  glad  to  hear  you  say  so.  I  presume  that 
the  great  extent  of  our  territory,  the  natural  disj)o- 
sition  of  our  people  to  travel,  our  extensive  network 
of  railways,  have  developed  our  hotel  system,  and 
made  it,  as  you  say,  without  a  jiarallel  in  the  world," 
I  re])lied. 

"Have  you  traveled  much,  sir?"  asked  Mrs. 
Lawyer. 

"Yes,  well  nigh  all  round  tlie  world.  And  so,  I 
flatter  myself,  I  have  had  more  experience  in  hotels 
than  most  men." 

"You  jnust  have  seen  a  great  variety,"  I  re- 
marked. 

The  Englishman  smilingly  replied :  "  In  far  ofE 
China  I  have  carried  about  my  own  bedding  from 


vi- 


ACCIDENTS,    ROOMS,    DOGS. 


55 


inn  to  inn,  not  carinj^  to  occnpy  that  in  wlilch  a 
Celestial,  a  Tartar,  or  a  Russian  had  slept  the  night 
before.  In  France,  I  have  taken  around  my  littlo 
])iece  ot*  soap,  an  almost  unknown  luxury  in  Conti- 
nental hotels.  In  India,  I  have  lodged  in  the  dak 
bungalows  ju'ovich.'d  by  the  government,  where  the 
articles  of  furniture  are  like  donkey's  gallops — few 
and  far  between.  There  you  must  manage  the 
commissariat  department  yourself  if  you  would  not 
starve.  I  I'emendjer  once  sto})ping  at  one  of  the  best 
country  hotels  in  the  Bombay  Presidency,  and  was 
given  a  sitting-room,  a  bed-room,  and  a  bath-room ; 
but  in  the  first  a  number  of  birds  had  built  their 
nests,  and  Hew  in  and  out  and  roundabout  at  their 
pleasure ;  in  the  bed-room  a  colony  of  ants  ..: warmed 
over  the  L'^or,  while  in  my  third  room  cockroaches 
and  other  creeping  things  gave  a  variegated  hue  to 
the  })avement;  everything  else  was  in  keeping." 

"  Horrors !  "  exclaimed  Mrs.  L. 

"Unpleasant,  to  say  the  least,"  I  remarked,  "  un« 
less,  indeed,  you  were  a  naturalist." 

"I  tliiidv,"  continued  our  traveled  friend,  "that 
one  never  feels  at  home  in  an  European  hotel.  You 
never  know  your  landlonl  or  your  fellow-sojourners ; 
the  table  (.Vhotc  in  the  grand  dining-halls  prevents  all 
intercourse  between  the  guests ;  they  never  liave  a 
smoking-room,  a  billiard-ro(jui,  a  bar-room,  or  a  bath- 
room ;  if  you  want  to  do '  tumbles  '  you  are  furnished 
with  a  rcGjular  old  tub." 

"I  know  that  from  experience,"  said  my  wife. 
"Once  at  a  grand  hotel  in  Florence  I  wanted  a 
bath,  and  was  promised  one.     By-and-by,  as  I  sat  at 


f'  H 


' 


m 


6e 


ACCIDENTS,    nOOMS,    DOGS. 


niy  window  ill  tlio  gloaming,  I  saw  a  man  trundling 
a  handciirt  containing  a  bath  and  somo  barrels,  la 
a  lew  minutes  two  men  solemnly  ushered  this  iden- 
tic:d  tulj  into  my  room,  then  in  three  suecessivo  trips 
they  brought  in  three  barrels  of  water,  two  cold, 
the  other  jiot;  a  isheet  was  spread  over  tho  bath, 
and  the  water  allowed  to  gurgle  out  of  the  bung- 
hole  into  it,  while  with  uprolied  sleeve  the  swarthy 
Italian  mingled  tho  hot  and  tho  cold  with  his  hand 
till  what  he  considered  a  suitable  temperature  was 
gained.  When  all  was  ready,  the  man  coolly  asked 
how  soon  he  should  come  back  for  his  aj)paratus. 
Actually  there  was  neither  bath  nor  water  in  tho 
liotel,  idtlujugh  the  Arno  rolled  beneath  its  win- 
dows. As  you  say,  bath-rooms  are  unknowu  in 
civilized  Europe." 

"Then,  again,''  I  said,  "  if  you  want  your  dinner, 
and  are  not  at  table  cVJiote^  you  must  write  out  a  list 
of  what  you  want  as  long  as  a  newspaper  editoritd, 
hand  it  in,  and  wait  longer  than  it  would  take  to 
set  it  up  in  typo  before  the  eatables  appear.  I  have 
known  peo^jle  wait  an  liour  at  swell  hotels,  and 
then  go  away  unsatisfied." 

"  There  are  i)lenty  of  hotels  in  all  large  English 
towns,"  said  our  friend ;  "but  none  a  quarter  of 
size  of  the  large  caravansaries  to  be  found  in  Is  f 
York,  Philadel})hia,  Chicago,  or  San  Francisco. 
Their  exteriors  are  rather  fine,  a  few  rooms  are  well 
furnished ;  but,  on  the  whole,  they  are  dark  and 
dingy." 

"  Were  you  ever  at  the  Grand  Hotel  du  Louvre, 
in  Paris?  "  asked  my  wife. 


ACCIDENTS,   ROOMS,    D0G3, 


57 


"Yes.  What  a  splendid  place  it  is!  The  diniiii^- 
room  is  not  the  largest,  but  it  is  as  fine  as  any  in 
the  world  ;  its  ornamentation  is  so  chaste,  its  chan- 
deliers so  splendid,  its  mirrors  so  magnilicent,  and 
the  dinner  is  perfection;  in  fact,  as  some  one  says, 
it  is  the  elysiumof  Um  bofi-vivdnts  iind  the  paradise 
of  the  esthetic.  But  if  I  go  on  in  this  style  you 
vill  take  mo  for  a  *  runner'  for  first-class  liotels." 
AW»  then  i)asscd  on  to  another  subject,  as  the  read- 
er must  to  another  cha])ter. 


:  1  ! 


!  1 


^1 


i  I 


I 


t    i 


I 


;,  ; 


Chapter  IV, 

GUESTS,  WAGERS,   AND    GAMES. 

A  fashionable  young  gent — a  dweller  in  tlic  city 
• — (on  whose  face  nature,  as  iu  tlie  case  of  the 
Honorable  Percy  Popjoy,  luid  burst  out  witli  a 
chhi-tuft,  but,  exhausted  with  tlie  effort,  had  left 
tlie  rest  of  the  countenance  smootli  as  an  infant's 
cheek)  had  been  enjoying  himself  with  some  kin- 
dred spirits,  (and  some  spirits  far  stronger,  too.) 
and  being  belated,  as  well  as  rather  bewildered, 
with  the  potations  of  the  evening,  went  to  bed  iu 
our  hotel.  The  next  morning  he  found  himself  the 
possessor  of  a  splitting  headache,  but  minus  his  gold 
repeater;  so  he  kindly  and  condescendingly  con- 
sulted m  )  upon  the  subject  of  the  proprietor's  lia- 
bility to  make  2;ood  his  loss. 

I  told  him  that  in  my  opinion  he  had  better  save 
up  his  money  and  buy  a  new  Avatch,  for  there  were 
several  reasons  why  the  hotel-keeper  need  not  give 
him  one. 

"What  are  they?"  he  asked. 

"  We  need  not  consider,"  I  re2)lied,  "  tlie  ques- 
tion of  your  negligence  in  carelessly  exhibiting 
your  watch  among  a  lot  of  people  at  the  bar,  nor 
in  leaving  your  door  unlocked,  nor  need  we  siy 
tUat  because  your  intoxication  contributed  to  the 
loss,  therefore  the  landlord  is  not  liable.^     The  fact 

I  Walsh  V.  Portcrfield,  Sup.  Ct.  Ta.  10  Alb.  L.  J.  370. 


■4 


GUESTS,   V/AGERS,     AND    GA3IES. 


59 


lia- 


thut  you  were  not  a  traveler  is  sufficient  to  prevent 
vour  recoverini'.  Loni:ic  since  it  was  laid  clown  in  old 
Bacon  that  inns  are  for  pasi^engers  and  wayfaring 
men,  so  that  a  friend  or  a  neiglibor  can  have  no 
action  as  a  <jfuest  ar^ainst  the  landlord."  l 

"Wliat  iu  thunder  have  I  to  do  Avitliwli.it  is 
laid  down  in  old  Bacon?" 

"  What  is  to  be  found  inside  old  Bacon,  and  old 
calf,  and  old  sheep,  has  a  good  deal  to  do  with 
every  one  who  makes  an  old  i»ig  of  himself,"  I 
testily  replied. 

"I  trust,  sir,  that  you  use  that  last  epithet  in  its 
Pickwickian  sense,"  said  the  young  exquisite. 

"Certainly,  certainly,''  I  hastened  to  rejdy,  "if 
you  will  so  accept  it." 

'•  Then  I  would  ask,"  continued  my  interrogator, 
"must  a  man  be  a  cert.'iin  lensith  of  time  at  an 
liotel  before  he  is  entitled  to  the  i)rivilegcs  of  a 
guest  ?  " 

"Oh,  dear,  no!  Merely  ])urchasing  temporary 
refreshment  at  an  inn  makes  the  }»urchaser  a  guest 
and  renders  the  innkeeper  liable  for  the  safety  of 
the  goods  he  may  have  with  him,-  if  he  is  a  trav- 
eler." 

"But  who  is  a  traveler?" 

"  One  who  is  absent  from  his  home,  whether  on 
])leasure  or  busijiess.'^  A  townsman  or  neighbor, 
who  is  actually  traveling,  may  be  a  guest.'*     In  a 


'.;!  : 


^  n.icon,  Abridc:..  vol.  4,  p.  448. 

2;Mcr)onalJ  c.  Edgcrtou,  6  J>arb.  5G0;  Bennett  v.  iMellor,  5 
T.  11.274. 
"  Per  Coekburn,  C.  J.,  Atkinson  v.  Sellurs,  o  C.  li.  N.  S.  44L'. 
"*  Walliuij  c.  rotter,  oo  Cuuu.  ISJ. 


! 

I 


i 


if 


'■  ti  I 


^^ 

1. 

li., 

\          :t 

00 


GUESTS,    WAGERS,    AND    GAMES. 


New  York  case,  wlicre  a  rt'siduiit  of  llio  town  left 
his  liorses  at  the  iiiu  Btublcs,  it  was  decided  that 
the  proprietor  was  not  liable  f.  r  them.^  So  if  a 
ball  in  given  at  an  liotel  the  guests  present  cannot 
hold  the  proprietor  liable  for  any  losses  occurring 
M'hile  tliey  are  tri])piiig  the  light  fantastic  toe,  as 
he  did  not  receive  them  in  his  ])ublic  capacity."  ^ 

"  But,"  remarked  a  person  standing  by,  "  but  how 
would  it  be  if  a  traveler  left  his  baggage  at  an  hotel 
and  stopped  elsewhere?" 

"If  one  leaves  any  dead  thing,  as  baggage,  at  an 
inn  he  will  in)t  be  considered  a  guest  ;^  if,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  leaves  a  horse,  he  becomes  entitled 
to  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  a  guest, 
even  thouii;h  ho  himself  lod<jjes  elsewhere."  ^ 

"  Why  the  difference  ?  "  quoth  one. 

"I  might,  perhaps,  be  more  correct  if  I  said  that 
on  this  point  the  authorities  are  antagonistic.^  The 
distinction,  however,  was  made  because,  as  the 
horse  must  be  fed,  the  innkeeper  has  a  profit  out  of 
it,  whereas  he  gets  nothing  out  of  a  dead  fhing.G 
One  need  not,  however,  take  all  his  meals  or  lodge 
every  night  at  the  inn  where  his  baggage  is.  It  is 
Buflicient  if  he  takes  a  room  and  lod.ojes  or  boards 
at  the  house  part  of  the  time.' 


"7 


1  C.rinnoll  v.  Cook,  o  Hill,  (N.  Y.)  48G. 

2C;iitcr  V.  Jlobbs,  12  JNJkh.  52. 

"GuUey  v.  Clarke,  Cro.  Juc.  188;  Orango  Co,  Dank  v. 
Brown,  U^Vc!na.  114. 

4  York  V.  Crindstono,  1  Salk.  388;  Mason  v.  Thomiisou,  *J 
Tick.  L'80;  Feet  v.  IMcOraw,  25  Wend.  053. 

cingalsbeo  r.  Woods,  33  N.  Y.  577;  Parsons  on  Contracts, 
Vol.  2,  p.  153. 

c  York  r.  drindstono,  supra. 

"McDaniels  v.  llobinsou,  2G  Yt.  310. 


GUESTS,    WAGERS,    AND    GAMES. 


61 


a. 


"I  tliiiik  I  liave  hciird  tliiit  if  one  innkos  an 
agreement  fur  boarding  by  tlie  week,  lie  ceases  to 
liave  the  rights  of  a  guest,"  said  the  previous 
speaker. 

"The  lengtli  of  time  for  which  a  person  resides 
at  an  liotel  does  not  affect  Ids  rights,  so  long  as  lie 
retains  liis  transient  character  ;-^  nor  does  lie  cease 
to  be  a  guest  by  proposing  after  liis  arrival  to  rc- 
niaiu  a  certain  lime,  nor  l)y  liis  ascertaining  the 
charges,  nor  by  paying  in  advance,  nor  from  time 
to  time  ;is  his  wants  arc  supplied,^  nor  even  by  ar- 
rnnufinuc  to  i)ay  so  nnich  a  week  for  his  board,  if  lie 
stays  so  k)ng,  after  he  has  taken  up  his  quarters  at 
the  house;  3  but  if  when  he  first  arrives  he  makes 
a  speci.il  agreement  as  to  board,"^  or  for  tlie  use  of 
a  room,^  he  never  becomes  a  <i:uest,  and  tlie  inn- 
keeper's  liability  is  totally  different,  being  only  that 
of  an  ordinary  bailee.  One  visiting  a  boarder  at 
an  inn  is  a  guest,  and  the  keeper  is  liable  for  tho 
loss  of  his  goods,  though  not  of  the  boarder's."  G 

"And  when  does  a  ])erson  cease  to  have  tho 
rights  of  a  guest?''  again  queried  the  questioner. 

I  replied,  "An  innkeeper's  liability,  as  such, 
ceases  when  the  guest  pays  his  bill  and  (piits  tho 
house  with  the  declared  intention  of  not  returniuLr, 

^  Parldmrst  r.  Foster,  Sal.  nSS. 

-  I'iiikertou  c.  Woodward,  ;•..}  Cal.  5.17. 

"Shoccraft  v.  iJailey,  '_','  Iowa,  53  ". ;  lierksliiro  AVooUcn  Co. 
r.  l»roctor,  7  Cush.  417  ;  Hall  v.  I'iko,  100  Mass.  4!»5. 

•'Cliambcrlaiu  r.  Mastcrson,  liO  Ala.  .'171  ;  ^lanuiiij^?'.  "NVclls, 
0  Ilumitli.  74(5;  Ewart  r.  Stark,  8  Rich.  423;  llursh  v.  Beyers, 
1>1)  Mo.  4iJ:);  I'arkhurst  r.  Foster,  Sal.  u88. 

c  I'arkcr  r.  Flint,  VI  ^lod.  L'55. 

CLusk  y.  Ijeloto,  212  ^liun.  4G8. 
o. 


i(f 


^l  ■ 


i 


i^V. 


n 


lif. 


C2 


CUCr.TS,    WAGERr,,    AND    OAJirS. 


r.nd  if  lie  llion  loaves  any  of  Ills  possessions  beliind 
liim,  tlie  1  ndlord  is  no  loncirer  liable  for  their  safe 
keeping,  unless  lie  lias  t.-iken  speeial  eliarge  of  ihem, 
and  then  only  as  any  other  eomnion  bailee  Avoukl 
be.i  vVnd  this  a})pears  to  be  so,  even  when  an  ar- 
ranijcinent  lias  been  made  for  the  keep  of  the  guest's 
horse.-  Unless  spceially  authorized,  a  elerk  cannot 
bind  his  master  bv  an  a<]::reement  to  keep  safelv  n, 
Gjuest's  baircjaijre  after  he  leaves."  3 

"  But  supposing  one  pays  his  bills  and  goes  off  ex- 
pecting to  have  his  traps  sent  after  him  immediately 
to  the  station?"  questioned  a  new  interrogator. 

"  Mrs.  Clark  went  to  '  The  Exchange  Hotel '  in 
Atlanta,  with  eight  trunks  ;  on  leaving,  the  ])orter 
of  the  inn  took  charge  of  the  baggage,  promising  to 
deliver  it  for  her  at  the  cars.  lie  lost  two  of  the 
]>ieces,  and  it  was  held  that  the  liability  of  the 
hotel-keeper  continued  until  such  delivery  was 
actually  made.'^  On  the  same  principle  that  when 
an  innkee])er  sends  his  porter  to  the  cars  to  receive 
the  baggage  of  intending  guests,  he  is  responsible 
until  it  is  actually  re-delivered  into  the  custodv  of 
the  guests.  And  where  a  man  paid  his  bill  for  the 
whole  day  and  went  off,  leaving  his  trunk,  with 
twenty  cents  for  porterage,  to  be  sent  to  the  boat, 
the  innkeeper  was  held  liable  uni'  the  baggage 
was  actually  put  on  board.^     The  liability  for  bag- 

1  Wiutcrmate  v.  Clarke,  5  Sandf.  2G2;  LawrcncG  v.  Howard, 
1  Utah  T.  14i>. 
2McI)ani('ls  v.  P.oljinson,  28  Vt.  387. 
sCorkindalo  r.  Eaton,  40  How.  N.  Y.  Pr.  2GG. 
4  Sasseou  v.  Clark,  37  Ga.  242. 
6  Giles  V.  Fatmtleroy,  13  Md.  12G. 


T 


GUESTS,   WAGERS,    AND    GArHES. 


C3 


m 


gage  left  with  an  innkeeper  with  his  consent,  con- 
tinues for  a  reasonable  time  after  tlie  settlement  of 


the  bill, 


(1 


ift( 


asonable  ti 


li 


responsible  for  gross  negligence. 


nne 
lere  a  visitor 

had  actual  notice  that  the  landlord  would  not  be 
responsible  for  valuables  unless  i)ut  under  his  care, 
and  on  preparing  to  depart  gave  a  trunk  containing 
precious  goods  into  the  care  of  the  servants  and  it 
was  lost,  yet  the  innkeeper  was  held  liable.-  So, 
also,  where  valuables  were  stolen  from  a  trunk 
after  the  guest  had  packed  it,  locked  his  room,  and 
given  notice  of  his  departure,  and  delivered  the 
key  of  his  room  to  the  clerk  to  have  the  trunk 
brouixht  down.3     What  is  all  that  row  about?" 

Weary  of  the  conversation,  and  being  attracted 
by  some  rather  loud  conversation  in  another  part 
of  the  room,  I  walked  off  to  see  what  it  was  all 
about,  and  soon  found  that  it  was  anent  a  young 
lady's  age. 

"  I  bet  you  she  is — "  began  one  of  the  disputants. 

"  Stop! "  I  cried,  "that  is  not  a  ])roper  wager." 

"Begad!  what  do  you  mean,  sir?"  was  queried 
in  tones  not  the  mildest. 

"  Simply  that  where  a  wager  concerns  the  person 
of  another,  no  action  can  be  maintained  upon  it. 
As  Bulk*r,  J.,  once  remarked,  a  bet  on  a  lady's  age, 
or  wliother  she  lias  a  mole  on  lier  face,  is  void.  No 
person  has  a  right  to  make  it  a  subject  of  discussion 
in  a  court  (jf  justice,  whether  she  passes  lierself  in 


I 

4i 


i-f! 

m 


i 

h 

m 


1 


1  Adams  v.  Clenn,  41  Ga.  G5. 

2  Stanton  i\  Lelaml,  4  E.  D.  Smith,  88. 

^liondetson  v.  French,  4G  N.  Y.  2GG;   Kellogg  v.  Sweeney, 
Ibid.  2'Jl. 


G4 


i 


I'd 


1:J 


!lll 


GUESTS,   WAGERS,    AND    GAIMES. 


the  world  to  be  more  in  the  bloom  of  youtli  than 
she  really  is,  or  whether  what  is  aj^parent  to  every 
one  who  sees  her,  is  a  mole  or  a  wart;  although  a 
lady  cannot  bring  an  action  against  a  man  for  say- 
ing she  is  thirty-three  when  she  i3asses  for  only 
twenty-three,  nor  for  saying  she  has  a  wart  on  lier 
face.  Nor  will  the  courts  try  a  wager  as  to  whether  a 
young  lady  squints  with  her  right  eye  or  witli  her 
Icft.^  And  Lord  Mansfield  came  to  very  much  the 
same  conclusion  in  discussiuij  the  law  in  a  celebrated 
wager  case  concerning  the  gender  of  a  certain  in- 
dividual,2  because,  as  liis  lordship  remarked,  actions 
on  such  wagers  would  disturb  the  peace  of  individ- 
uals and  society." 

"Confound  it,  the  fellow  seems  to  have  swallowed 
a  law  library,"  muttered  one  man ;  while  another 
said, 

"But  surely  many  wagers  equally  as  absurd  have 
been  sued  on  in  courts  of  law  with  success." 

"There  is  no  doubt  of  that,"  I  replied.  "It  was 
done  upon  a  bet  of  'six  to  four  that  Bob  Booby 
would  win  the  plate  at  the  New  Lichfield  races  ;'^ 
also,  upon  a  wager  of  a  '  rump  and  dozen  '  whether 
one  of  the  betters  were  older  than  the  other.^  In 
the  latter  case  the  C.  J.  modestly  said  that  he  did 
not  judicially  know  what  a  'rump  and  dozen' 
meant;  but  another  judge  more  candidly  remarked 
that  privately  he  knew  that  it  meant  a  good  dinner 
and  wine.     And  a  bet  as  to  whose  father  would  die 

iGood  V.  Elliott,  3  T.  R.  G93. 
2  Da  Costa  v.  Jones,  Cowper,  720. 
8  McAllister  v.  lladeu,  2  Campb.  436. 
4  llussey  V.  Crickett,  3  Campb,  IGO. 


GUESTS,   WAGERS,    AND    GAMES. 


C5 


11 
y 


r 


first  was  lieM  good,  altliough  one  okl  man  was  de- 
fiinct  at  the  time,  llio  fact  not  being  known  to  llio 
parties.^  But  Lord  EDcnborongli  refused  to  try 
an  action  on  a  Meager  on  a  cock-figlit."  - 

"Altbougli  at  common  Liw  many  wagers  were 
legal,"  remarked  tbc  Englisb  gentleman  alluded  to 
aforetime,  "  still,  in  England,  as  tbelaw  now  stands, 
all  wagers  are  null  and  void  at  law,^  and  if  tlui  loser 
citber  cannot  or  won't  pay,  tbe  law  will  not  assist 
tbc  winner;'^  but  eilber  party  may  recover  tbo 
Btake  deposited  by  bim,  before  it  is  paid  over  to 
tbe  winner  by  tbe  Iiolder.  Tbat  point  was  settled 
in  tbe  case  of  a  genius  wbo  bet  all  tbe  i>bilosopbers, 
divines,  and  scientilio  professors  in  tbe  United 
Kingdom,  £'>00,  Ibat  tbey  could  not  i)rovc  tbo  ro- 
tundity and  revolution  of  tbe  eartb  from  Scripture, 
from  reason,  or  from  fact,  tbe  wager  to  be  won  by 
tbe  taker  if  bo  could  exbibit  to  tbo  satisfaction  of 
an  intelligent  referee  a  convex  raiKvay,  canal,  or 
lake."  ^ 

"Was  tbo  referee  satisfied?"  asked  a  bystander. 

"Yes;  it  was  proved  to  bis  satisfaction  tbat  on  a 
canal,  in  a  distance  of  six  miles,  tbero  was  a  curva- 
ture to  and  fro  of  five  feet,  more  or  less.  And  tbeu 
tbo  man  asked  bis  stake  back,  and  got  it,  too." 

"In  New  York,"  I  said,  "it  bas  been  bold,  under 
a  statute  giving  tbe  losing  party  a  rigbt  of  action 
against  tbo  stake-bolder  for  tbo  stake,  wbetber  tbo 

1  Earl  of  March  r.  Pigot,  5  Burr.  2S02. 

2  Squires  ?'.  Wliiskeii,  u  Camp.  HO. 
3Soo  8  and  1)  Vict.,  chap.  101). 

<  Savago  r.  Madden,  oG  L.  J.  Ex.  178. 

fi  Hampden  v.  Walsh,  L.  K.  1  Q.  B.  Div.  189. 


'  ••I 


It. 


60 


GUESTS,    WAGLRS,    AND    CA.^[ES. 


!  i 


ij 


|{  i 


Btnkc  linsboon  ]i:ii(l  over  hy  IIk^  stMko-li'Odcror  not, 
and  Avlictlior  llio  WMijjcr  1x3  lost  or  iiol,  tiiat  iho 
holder  is  liiililc  to  tli(3  loser,  aitlioiiij^li  lu;  had  ]>aid 
over  thcj  staki;  by  his  directions. i  And  in  several  of 
the  States,  if  the  wager  is  illegal,  the  stak(^-hol<"!er 
is  liable  to  be  made  refund  the  stakes,  notwith- 
standing payment  to  tlu^  winner."' 2 

"Such  decisions  are  subvv'rsivo  of  all  honor  and 
honesty,"  said  a  betting  looking  character. 

"Not  so.  A  bet  should  bo  a  contract  of  honor, 
and  no  more.  One  should  not  bet  uidess  ho  can 
trust  his  ojiponent.  The  time  of  the  courts  of  law 
should  not  be  taken  u})  by  such  matters." 

"Are  tlu!  American  courts  as  h:ird  upon  wagers 
as  the  Knulish  ?  "  asked  the  Englishman. 

"Quite  so,"  I  replie(b  "In  S(jmo  jiarls  of  the 
country  they  have  been  prohibited  by  statute,  and 
some  courts  have  denied  them  any  validity  what- 
ever. Tn  Colorado  it  was  held  that  the  courts  liad 
enough  to  do  without  devoting  their  time  to  the 
solution  of  questions  arising  out  of  idle  bets  made 
on  dog  and  cock-fights,  horse-races,  the  speed  of 
trains,  the  construction  of  railroads,  the  n.umber  on 
a.  dice,  or  the  character  of  a  card  that  may  bo 
turned  up.*^  Even  if  admitted  to  be  valid  in  any 
case,  it  is  quite  clear  upon  the  authorities  that  they 
cannot  be  upheld  where  they  refer  to  the  person  or 
property  of  another,  so  as  to  make  him  infamous  or 


1  Rucliraan  v.  Titchcr,  1  Comst.  393. 

2 Garrison  v.  McGregor,  51  111.  473;  Adkins  v.  Fleming,  29 
Iowa,  122;  Soarlo  v.  Prevost,  4  Iloust.  (Del.)  4G7.  But  see 
Johnston  v.  Russell,  37  Cal.  G70. 

SEklreil  v.  MuUoy,  2  Col.  320. 


GUESTS,   WAGEES,    AXD    GATJES. 


C7 


to  injure  liiin,  or  if  tliey  are  libelous,  or  indecent,  or 
tend  to  break  the  peace.i  In  some  States  it  lias 
been  decided  that  \vagers  u})on  the  i-esult  of  elec- 
tions arc  ngainst  |>ubli(',  i)oIi('y,  and  tliereforo  void. 
In  California,  durinij^  the  i)residential  canii)aign  of 
180.'^,  a  man  called  Johnson  bet  that  Horatio  Sev- 
mour  would  ha\'e  a  majority  of  votes  in  that  State, 
while  one  Freeman  bet  that  U.  S.  Grant  would  be 
the  lucky  man.  ]Mr.  Ilussell  was  the  stakeholder. 
After  the  i-esult  of  the  election  was  known,  John- 
son demanded  his  money  back,  but  Russell  honor- 
ably ]»aid  it  over  to  the  winner;  so  J.  turned  round 
and  sued  for  it.  The  Court  held,  that  if  Johnson 
had  repudiated  bis  bet  and  asked  for  bis  money  be- 
fore the  election,  or  before  tho  result  was  known, 
he  might  have  -ot  it,  but  that  now  be  was  toolate.2 
Judge  Sander.'on  remarked  that  in  times  of  politi- 
cal excitement  i)ers()ns  might  be  provoketl  to  make 
wafers  which  they  might  I'egret  in  their  cooler  mo- 
ments.  No  obstacles,  ho  thought,  should  be  thrown 
in  the  way  of  their  rej)entance,  and  if  they  re- 
tracted before  the  bet  has  been  decided,  their  money 
ought  to  be  returned;  but  those  who  allow  their 
stakes  to  remain  until  after  the  wager  has  been 
decided  and  the  result  known,  are  entitled  to  no 
such  consideration  ;  their  tears,  if  any,  arc  not  re- 
]>entant  tears,  but  such  as  crocodiles  shed  over  the 
victims  they  are  about  to  devour."  ^ 

"Ah,  then  it  has  been   judicially    decided   that 


f^ 


1  Parsons  on  Contrartn,  vol.  2,  p.  75(>. 

2  Yates  r.  Foot,  12,Iolins.  1. 

3  Juliusou  V.  Russell,  o7  Cal.  G70. 


J! 


j  !    . 

I 

i,  ', 
i  ■  - 


>j, 


03 


GUESTS,    WAGERS,    AND    GAMES. 


(M'ocodllcs    weep,"    sarcastically    observctl    a    by- 
slaiKlcr. 

* 

From  talking  on  wagcrinjj^,  wo  naturally  i)as.se(l 
to  the  subject  of  gaming — a  kindrecl  vice. 

"I  believe  tbat  in  England  there  is  a  law  forbid- 
ding  an  innkeeper  to  allow  any  gaming  on  his  ])reni- 
ises,"  I  remai'ked. 

"Yes,"  said  the  English  barrister.  "Any  licensed 
inidvceper  who  suffers  any  gaming  or  betting  or 
unlawful  games  upon  his  premises,  runs  the  risk  of 
beinui:  fined." ^ 

"What  do  they  consider  gaming?"  asked  a  rak- 
ish looking  individual,  who  seemed  as  if  he  under- 
stood practically  what  it  was. 

"Playing  at  any  game  for  money,^  or  beer, 
or  money's  worth  ;'^  or  even  exhibiling  betting 
lists."  ^ 

"That  seems  precious  hard,"  quotli  the  rake. 

"In  one  case  an  innkeeper  was  i)unished  for  al- 
lowing his  own  i)rivato  friends  to  i>lay  at  cards  for 
money  in  his  own  i)rivate  room,  on  the  licensed 
l^rcmises."^ 

Enufland,"  remarked  the 


y 


ou 


th. 


•ty 


"  That  was  almost  as  l)ad   as  the  tavcrnkceper 
who  was  fined  by  some  energetic  Yorkshire  magis- 

1  "Wharton  on  Tnnkoopers,  G2. 

'-5  Ilex  V.  Ashton,  22  L.  J.  M.  G.  1. 

8  Danford  v.  Taylor,  22  L.  T.  Hep.  4S3  ;  Toot  v.  Baker,  G 
Scott  iX.R.  301. 

4  Searlo  v.  St.  Martins'  J.  J.  4  J.  r.  270 ;  Avards  v.  Dunce, 
2G  J.  r.  4:!7. 

a  Patten  v.  Hliymer,  29  L.  J.  M.  C.  189. 


OXTESTS,   WAGERS,    AXD    GAMES. 


69 


Irate  for  bciiii^  drunk  in  his  own  bctl,  in  liis  own 
house !"^  observed  .'inotlier. 

''Farewell  to  tlie  fond  notion  that  an  En'jflish- 
man's  house  is  liis  eastle ! ''  inclodraniati(;alIy  ex- 
elainied  tlie  youtli. 

*'  l>ut  i)lease  allow  nic  to  say  that  Lust,  J.,  lield, 
in  ;i  very  recent  case,  that  although  an  innkeeper, 
if  drunk  on  his  own  premises  while  they  arc  opcMi, 
is  as  much  amenable  to  the  penalty  as  if  ho 
was  found  drunk  upon  the  hi<^hway,  vet  it  could 
never  have  been  intended  that  an  innkeeper  who  is 
drunk  in  liis  own  bedroom  should  bo  liable  any 
more  than  a  person — not  a  publican — found  drunk 
in  his  own  private  house,"  2  said  the  Englishman. 

"And  wiiat,  pray,  may  be  the  unlawful  games 
which  arc  so  strictly  forbidden  inside  the  tavern— 
the  poor  man's  home?"  asked  the  youth. 

"Dice,  ace  of  hearts,  faro,  basset,  hazard,  passage, 
or  any  game  played  with  dice,  or  with  any  instru- 
ment, engine,  or  device  in  the  n;iture  of  dice,  hav- 
ing figures  or  numbers  thereon,  and  roulette,  or 
rolly-poUy ;  and  bull-baiting,  bear-baiting,  badger- 
baiting,  dog-fighting,  cock-lighting,  and  all  such 
games,  are  unlawful,"  replied  the  Englishman. 
•  "Surely,  you  have  not  got  through  the  black  list 
yet,"  ironically  remarked  our  rake. 

"Those  mentioned,  and  the  game  of  puff  and 
dart,  if  played  for  money  or  money's  worth,*^  and 
lotteries  and  sweepstakes,  except  in  cases  of  art 
unions,  where  works  of  art  are  given  as  prizes,  aro 


m 
r 


il 


! 
I      I 


1  Wharton,  81. 

2  Lester  r.  Torrens,  L.  K.  2  Q.  li.  Div.  403. 
8  13ew  V.  llarstou.  L.  R.  a  Q.  B.  Div.  454. 


I  • 


70 


GUESTS,   WAO   RS,    AND    C.UIKS. 


; 


m 


all  tlio  giimcs  r  r(MiKMnl)cr,  that  arc  prohibited  by 
the  St:itnt(>s  of  llcnry  VIII,  Gcorgo  II,  and  her 
present  Majesty." 

"May  I  ask  wliat  c^amos  you  arc  ]>erinltted  to  in- 
dul;j!;(!  in?  I  <lo  not  sec  tliat  any  arc  left,  except  the 
*«jjrinninu;  (hroui^h  a  halter,'  spoken  of  in  77i<!  Sjn'c- 
t(Uoi\  in  which  highly  intelhotual  an<l  moral  con- 
test the  rule  is 

"'Tim  (Iroiidfullcst,  grinnor 
To  bo  tlio  wiiuicr. ' 

"  Backgauinion  and  all  games  played  upon  back- 
gammon boards,^  (pioits,  tennis,  and  all  games  of 
mere  skill,  are  i)erfe('tly  lawful,  unless  played  for 
money  or  money's  worth.' 2 

"And  what  of  billiards?" 

"  Oh,  that  is  not  unlawful  unless  played  for 
money."  ^ 

"No  wonder,"  said  Mr,  Rake,  "that  i»eo])le  emi- 
grate from  that  benighted  land.  And  yet  Henry 
VII,  and  James  I,  and  his  estimable  son,  Prince 
Henry,  were  remarkably  fond  of  having  a  game  of 
cards;  although  Scotch  Jamie  was  so  lazy  a  coon 
that  he  required  a  servant  to  hold  his  hand  for  him. 
I  believe  that  those  good  sovereigns  who  j^^i'^'i'titl 
these  virtuous  laws  took  care  to  except  from  their 
operation  their  royal  palaces."  ^ 

"I  would  remind  you,  my  good  sir,"  I  said,  "that 
gaming  is  forbidden  in  almost  all  the  States ;  thai 

ii;iG(>o.  TT,  chap.  19. 

2  8  and  0  Vict.  chap.  109.  sec.  1. 

^  AVharton,  05. 

4  Abiuger,  C.  B.,  iii  Mo-XiuucU  v.  Robinson,  3  M.  &  AV.  433 


GUESTS,    WAUEUS,    AND    tiAMES. 


n 


'y 


a,  jiulgo  ill  South  CaroliiiJi  said  that  if  ho  couhl 
huvo  his  own  way,  ho  would  liold  I  hat  a  hilliard 
room  ko|it  for  filthy  hici'o's  sako  was  a  iiuisanoo  at 
conunou  hiw ;  ^  aud  tho  saiiu;  judg(;  docidod  that  a 
howliniJj-alU'y  kojtt  for  i^ain  was  a  iiuisaiu!0.  In 
Kentucky,  it  was  licld  unhiwful  to  tlirow  dit'o  to  sec 
Avho  sliould  pay  for  tlio  drinks ;  2  in  Vir;jjiuia,  het- 
tiiiL^  on  a  gauio  of  bagatelle  was  held  illegal; 3 
while  in  Tennessee,  selling  j»rize-eandy  ])aekages 
"Was  decided  to  ho  LC'iniini;  and  indictable."'^ 


"Alas,  my  country! 


?) 


"  I>y  the  way,  do  you  remember,  sir,  the  distinc- 
tion the  Ettrick  Shepherd  drew  l)etweeii  tho  card- 
jdaying  of  old  ])eoplo  and  that  of  young  folk?" 
asked  an  elderly  bystander  of  Seotian  descent. 

"Xo,  what  was  it?" 

"lie  says,  'you'll  generally  tin'  that  auld  folk 
that  l>hiy  carrds  have  been  raither  freevolous,  and 
no  mucklc  addicteed  to  thocht,  unless  they're 
greedy,  and  i)lay  for  tho  pool,  which  is  fearsome  in 
auld  age.  But  as  for  young  folks,  lads  and  lasses 
like,  when  the  gude  man  and  his  wife  are  gaen  to 
bed,  what's  tho  harm  in  a  gaem  at  cairds?  It's  a 
checrfu'  noisy  sicht  o'  comfort  and  confusion  ;  sic 
lookin'  into  ano  ainitlier's  ban's!  sic  fauso  shufllin'! 
sic  unfair  dealin' !  sic  winkin'  to  tell  your  pairtner 
that  ye  hao  tho  king  or  the  ace !  And  when  that 
winna  do,  sic  kicken'  o'  shins  an'  treadiii'  on  taea 

1  Tanner  r.  Albion,  5  Ilill,  12S  ;  but  see  Peoplo  v.  Surgeaut, 
8  Cowcn,  lo'X 
-  Me  Daniels  ik  Commonwealth,  0  Uusli.  o2'o. 
»  Ne;il"s  Case,  22  Gratt.  017. 
*  Eubauks  v.  State,  o  Ilersk.  488. 


:i  I 


'I 


HI  1  ' 

Mil 

II    I 

[: 

1 

If; 

i  1      I 


h\  1  ' 


\; 


li..r 


''I  ' 

!        : 


I 


72 


GUESTS,   WAGERS,    AND    GAMES. 


aiicatli  the  tuble — often  tlio  wrong  ancs  !  Then  what 
gigglin'  umang  the  lasses !  what  amiable,  nay,  love 
qii.'UTels  between  pairtners!  jokin'  an'  jeestin',  and 
lanntin'  an'  too/lin' — the  eawnel  blawn  out,  an'  the 
sound  of  a  thousan'  kisses.  That's  eaird-playiu'  in 
the  kintra,  Mr.  North,  and  where's  the  man  amang 
yc  that  '11  daur  to  say  tliat  it 's  no'  a  pleasant  j)as- 
tinie  o'  a  winter  nieht,  when  the  snaw  is  a  cumin' 
doon  the  hun,  or  the  speat  's  roarin'  amang  the 
mirk  mountains?  " 

"•  Give  us  tliat  in  English,"  said  the  forward 
young  man,  as  he  left  the  room. 

*  4-  ;^  iff  iff 

There  was  a  door  between  our  ])edroom  and  that 
adjoining.  Upon  taking  i)ossession,  we  tried  it ;  it 
appeared  fast,  but  the  key  was  not  on  our  side  and 
the  bolt  was  hors  die  combat. 

My  wife  had  retired  for  the  night,  and  was  rap- 
idly approaching  that  moment  when  the  rustling 
silk,  the  embroidered  skirt,  tlie  jiannier,  the  braids, 
and  elaborately  arranged  coiffure  are  exchanged  for 
a  robe  do  melt  of  virgin  white  and  a  bob  of  hair  on 
the  head,  simplex  numdltlis.  Suddenly  the  door 
between  the  two  rooms  creaked,  squeaked,  and 
02)ened,  and  a  creature  clad  in  man's  attire  pro- 
truded his  head.  When,  however,  he  s:iw  that  the 
room  Avas  occupied  he  drew  back,  laughing  to  him- 
self as  lie  locked  the  door. 

On  my  arrival  I  found  the  partner  of  my  joys 
and  sorrows  perched  upon  the  bed  like  Patience  on 
a  monument.  Innnediately  chambermaids,  house- 
maids, and  waiters  were  summoned,  and  informed 


GUESTS,   WAGERS,    AND    GAMES. 


73 


1 1 


that  the  kov  must  bo  taken  out  of  that  dreadful 
door  and  placed  in  llie  ofliee.  After  liis  voyage  of 
discovery,  Paul  Pry  liad  gone  out,  so  a  Avaiter 
entered  the  room,  took  the  key,  and  liaving  ham- 
pered the  lock  of  P.  P.'s  door,  lie  passed  out  via 
our  room,  my  -wife  jjjracefuHv  retiriu'j;  into  a  closet. 
When  we  were  (luictlv  recliniuL!:  on  our  downv 
couch  Avc  heard  our  neiufhhor  makiu'jc  fruitless 
efforts  to  regain  Ids  roo!n;  in  vain  he  summoned 
the  chambermaid  with  her  kevs:  m  vain  camo 
the  waiter  with  his.  P.  P.  had  to  pass  the  nlglit 
in  another  apartment,  minus  his  toilet  appoint- 
ments. 

"What  would  I  have  done,"  asked  my  wife,  "if 
tliat  horrid  wretch  had  come  into  the  room?'' 

"Oh,  we  could  have  l)rou2:ht  an  action  of  tres- 
pass  against  liim;i  for  tlio  possession  we  have  of 
this  room  is  quite  suflicient  to  entitle  us  to  recover 
against  a  wrong-doer,  although  we  could  not  ii  lin- 
tain  such  an  action  against  the  liotel-keeper  if  he 
ehould  enter  for  any  proper  purpose."  ^ 

"But  that  would  not  be  a  very  great  satisfac- 
tion," said  my  wife. 

"  Well,  it  is  the  best  we  could  do,  for  we  could 
not  summon  to  our  aid  the  good  spirits  that  inter- 
fered on  belialf  of  the  Lady  Godiva  to  i)unisU 
Peeping  Tom." 

"But  what  if  he  had  assaulted  me?  "  ^he  queried. 

"Well,  lam  afraid  I  would  have  liad  to  settle 
the  matter  willi  him,  for  an  innkeeper  is  not  bound. 


i!; 


iGraliara  v.  Toat.  1  East,  240. 

2  Doy lo  r.  Walker,  20  U  C.  R.  CO'?. 


1 


II 


'h 


■i 


i  ' 


y: 


It  . 


'\'\ 


74 


GUESTS, 


WAG2RS,    AND    GAZMES. 


to  Ivccp  safe  the  bodies  of  hh  guests,^  but  merely 
their  baggage;  that  is,  such  articles  of  necessary 
or  person;)]  convenience  as  are  usually  carried  by 
travelers  for  their  own  use,  the  facts  and  circum- 
stances of  each  case  decidincr  what  these  articles 
may  be .2    Hush !  what  is  that?  " 

"  A  mosquito." 

"Well,  I  must  kill  it." 

"iSTevcr  mind,"  urged  my  wife.  "Spare  the 
little  creature." 

"  I  can't  stand  their  bites  any  more  than  my  bet- 
ter^s,  and  others  who  have  gone  before.  When 
they  ])ierced  the  boots  of  the  Father  of  his  Country 
in  the  New  Jersey  marshes,  that  exemplary  indi- 
vidual indulged  in  bad  language  ;  they  drove  buck 
the  army  of  Julian  the  Apostate,  or  apostle,  as  Lord 
Kenyon  called  jiim;  they  compelled  Sapor,  the 
Persian,  to  raise  the  siege  of  Nisib<3s,  stinging  his 
elephants  and  camels  into  mxidness ;  they  render 
pome  parts  of  the  banks  of  the  Po  uninhabitable, 
and  cause  people  in  some  countries  t »  sleep  in  pits 
with  nothing  but  their  lieads  above  ground.  IIow, 
then,  can  you  expect  me  to  lie  quietly  hero  and 
wait  to  have  their  horrid  w;ir-w]iOop  sung  in  mine 
ears,  as  they  dance  in  giddy  mazes  from  side  to 
Fide,  ere  they  plunge  their  sharp  stilettos  into  my 
bhrinking  flesh  ?  " 

Forthwith  I  arose,  lit  the  gas,  and  w^andered 
round  and  round  the  room,  a  white-stoled  acolvto 
of  science,  with  a  towel  in  my  hand,  ready  to  take 


tits. 
SIS   ,; 

m"  I 


iCaylo'8Case,8Co.  .".2. 

2  J^sseea  r.  Clark,  a?  Ga.  242. 


GUESTS,   WAGERS,    A^D    GAXE3. 


to 


tlic  life  of  any  member  of  the  extensive  family  of 
Cidex  Pipien.<t.  Long  was  tlic  search  after  the 
tireless  musician,  blowing  his  own  trumpet  as  cn- 
thusiasticallv  as  anv  other  musical  "■enius.  jMy  wife 
mocked  me  as  I  danced  about,  fli|)}»iiig  to  tliu  right 
and  to  the  left;  but  at  last  IMrs.  ]Mosquito,  swan- 
like, sang  a  song,  which  (to  me,  at  least)  was  her 
sweetest,  as  it  was  her  last. 


\l 


B 


v,r  i 


F 


Chapter  V. 


SAFES   AND   BAGGAGE. 


Shortly  after  tliis,  while  traveUng  in  a  2)alacecar, 
and  during  the  night,  Mrs.  Lawv  *  lost  some  of  her 
paraphernalia,  and  felt  strongly  iuelmed  to  make  a 
row  about  it;  but  I  quoted  the  sublime  words  of 
Bomebody  or  other,  "Let  us  have  peace,''  and  then 
told  her  that  the  owners  of  sleeping  cars — who  re- 
ceive i)ay  in  advance  from  travelers  merely  for  the 
Bleei)ing  accommodations  afforded  by  their  cars, 
and  this  only  from  a  i)articular  class  of  persons,  ami 
for  a  particular  berth,  and  for  a  particular  trip — are 
not  liable  as  innkeepers  for  money  or  2)roperty  that 
may  be  stolen  from  the  lodgers  on  their  cars ;  and 
that,  as  they  only  furnish  sleeping  accommodation 
for  travelers  who  have  already  paid  the  railway 
company — over  whose  line  the  cars  run — for  their 
transportation,  and  receive  no  part  of  the  fare  paid 
for  transportation,  they  are  not  common  carriers, 
nor  are  they  liable  for  property  lost  or  stolen  from 
their  carriages.  Mr.  Cliester  M.  Snuth,  who  lost 
$1,180  on  the  Pullman  car  "Missouri,"  in  the  State 
of  Illinois,  in  Decembei',  1S7'J,  was  the  innocent 
cause  of  the  enunciation  of  the  law  upon  this  i)oint. 
Tlie  court  held  tliat  a  Pullman  car  is  not  a  com- 
mon inn — that  it  does  not  accommodate  ])ersons 
imliscriminately — does  not  furnidi  victual  and  lodg- 
ing,  but    only   lodging  —  affords   no    accommodu-. 

t76  3 


'^'  ^ 


SAFES    AND    BAGGAGE. 


77 


tion  but  a  berth  and  bed,  and  a  place  and  conven- 
iences for  toilet  ]turposes — does  not  receive  pay  for 
caring,  nor  undertake  to  care,  for  tlic  goods  of 
travelers;  but  the  accommodation  afforded  is  tlio 
result  of  an  express  contract,  and  that  the  liabili- 
ties of  innkeej)ers  should  not  be  extended  to  othcrs.i 
"We  had  passed  from  one  State  into  another,  and 
liad  now  taken  up  our  (piarters  at  a  magnificent  hotel 
(its  name  will  not  be  mentioned,  for  I  do  not  desiro 
to  injure  any  of  the  other  houses).  As  we  stepped 
out  of  the  cab,  wo  entered  a  vast  and  liandsomo 
office  of  white  marble,  and  passed  up  to  the  splendid 
parlors  and  luxurious  bed-rooms  above.  Tlie  way 
I  wrote  our  names  in  the  register,  and  asked  for 
dimier  in  our  private  sitting-room,  led  the  gentle- 
manly clerk  to  believe  that  myself  and  Mrs.  Lawyer 
had  but  lately  cntere<l  into  a  partnership  for  weal 
and  woe;  this  I  found  when  the  elegantly  attired 
waiters  served  our  dinner.  The  whole  service  was 
one  continued  tribute  to  Love.  On  tlie  soup  tureen 
were  little  Cupids,  training  a  Imgc  turtle;  on  the 
fish  plates,  as  mermaids  and  mermen,  tliev  were 
riding  on  salmon  and  dolphins;  on  the  other  dishes, 
these  naked  little  rascals  Hew  about  among  beau- 
tiful birds,  hid  under  strawberry  vines,  or  swung 
in  si)ider-web  hammocks  from  sprays  of  wild  black- 
berry;  they  dug  in  ravines  like  mountain  gnomes, 
and  pried  and  lifted  carrots  with  comical  machi- 
nery, as  though  they  were  great  bars  and  ingots  of 
yellow  gold.  Some  of  the  disii-covers  were  shaped 
hke  cabbages,  and  Cupids  peeped  from,  under  every 


1  Pullman  Palace  Car  Co.  r.  Smith,  73  111.  3G0, 


I 


il 


U  i 


!!' 

* 

j 

i ' 

i 

1 

( ■ 

73 


SAFES    AND    BAGGAGE. 


curling  loaf ;  others,  ag.iin,  gathered  the  vintago 
and  trod  the  grapes.  Last  of  all,  on  the  dessert 
service  was  represented  the  marriage  of  the  queen 
of  the  flower  fairies,  each  piece  a  different  flower, 
with  u  hjvc  perched  on  it,  some  with  torches,  others 
with  instruments  of  music;  while  the  central  stand 
represented  the  ceremony  itself;  a  scarlet  eardinaU 
flower  was  saying  mass,  and  on  the  liighest  point 
of  the  dish,  (which  represented  a  church  tower,)  {\ 
chorus  of  these  sprites  of  Venus  w^ere  tugging  at  tho 
stamens  of  a  cliinie  of  fuchsias,  like  boys  merrily 
pulling  the  ropes  of  wedding  hells.  Each  piece 
differed  from  the  others,  but  tliere  was  a  love  in 
every  one.  My  wife  was  in  raptures  over  the 
beautiful  china,  the  exquisite  elves,  the  graceful 
flowers,  the  delicate  sentiments,  tlie  jioetry  in  the 
artist's  soul  thus  moulded  into  form — hardened 
into  a  thing  <>f  beauty,  a  joy  forever.  She  could 
not  restrain  h^  .  exclamations  of  delight,  as  course 
succeeded  coui  ^',  even  in  the  presence  of  the  sedate 
attendants.  Each  new  beauty  called  forth  a  new 
expression  of  wonder  and  i)leasure.  She  would 
scarce  allow  anything  on  her  }>late,  so  anxious  was 
bhe  to  study  the  devices  and  designs.  I  was  calmer, 
being  older,  hungrier,  less  ethereal,  and  feeling  an 
inner  consciousness  that  a  lieavv  bill  would  bo  the 
buccessor  of  these  fairy  scenes. 

Even  this  dinner  came  to  an  end,  lonci:  though 
we  toved  over  the  dessert.  The  china  afforded  ri 
ceaseless  toi)ic  of  conversation,  until  at  length  little 
fairies  of  another  kind  began  to  hang  uj^on  the  long 
black  lashes  which  veiled  my  wife's  beantiful  brown 
eyes,  and  we  pujaeied  into  our  bed-chamber. 


SAFES    AND    BAGGAGE. 


73 


Over  the  maiild-picco  of  our  doriiiitory  liiinix  a 
card,  on  which  was  i)riiitcHl  llio  following: 

"take  notice. 

"This  building  is  firc-jiroof. 

"Several  robberies  having  tak(Mi  place  during 
the  night,  in  the  i)rineii)al  liotels,  the  |)roj)rietor 
respectfully  requests  all  visitors  to  use  the  night- 
bolt. 

"Money,  jewelry,  or  articles  of  value  are  re- 
quested to  be  left  at  the  bar,  otherwise  the  ])ro- 
prietor  will  not  hold  hiniself  respon>il)lo  for  any 
loss.  "A.  B.,  Proprietor." 

My  wife,  who  was  ra])idly  increasing  in  legal 
knowledge  and  acuteness  under  my  able  instruc- 
tions, and  was  lllled  with  the  romantic  idea  of  be- 
coming a  veritable  helpmate  to  me  in  my  ]>rofes- 
Bion  as  well  as  in  the  ex})enditure  of  my  money, 
after  readinij:  the  nolicc  asked  me  if  I  was  croint'  to 
hand  over  my  valuables.  I  told  her  that  Pollock, 
C.  B.,  had  announced  to  the  world  that  it  was  his 
opinion  that  such  a  notice  did  not  ap;  ly  to  those 
articles  of  jewelry  which  a  person  usually  carries 
with  him — his  watch,  for  inst:mce — because,  as  the 
learned  judge  j)Uts  it,  Buch  an  article  would  l)e  of 
little  service  to  the  owner  if  it  were  nightly  stowed 
away  in  the  hotel  safe,'  His  lordship,  however,  was 
inclined  to  think  that  if  the  watch  were  a  richly 
jeweled  one,  set  in  valuable  diamonds,  it  would  bo 
wiser  to  give  it  to  the  jtroprietor  to  keep."^ 


1  Morgan  i'.  Kavey,  G  Hurl.  &  N.  2Go. 


2  Ibid. 


m 

i 


.4  .hi 


ip 


80 


SAFES    AND    BAGGAQB. 


"But  llifit  is  an  English  docision,"  rcmarkccl  my 
wife,  filled  with  the  j^onuino  occidental  opinion  ol 
oriental  notions. 

"Well,  supposinc^  it  is,''  I  made  answer,  "it  is  in 
accord  with  the  American;  and  a  New  York  judge 
once  said  that  altliough  a  watcli,  a  gold  pen,  and 
pencil-case  might  in  some  sense  be  called  jewels, 
Btill  they  should  be  considered  i)art  of  a  traveler's 
personal  clothing,  or  ap|)arel  —  and  one  after  i-etir* 
ing  to  rest  for  tlie  night  is  not  expected  to  send 
down  his  ordinary  clothing  or  apparel  to  be  depos- 
ited in  tlie  safe."i 

"But,"  continued  Mrs.  Lawyer,  "this  notice  is 
not  exactly  the  same  as  what  one  generally  sees;  it 
says  nothing  about  the  proprietor  not  being  liable 
for  tlie  loss  of  thinij-s  above  a  certain  sum." 

"No,"  I  rej)lied,  "and  it's  all  the  better  for  us; 
for  if  the  notice  required  by  law  is  not  properly 
posted  up  in  the  oillce  and  bedrooms,  tlie  i)ro2;)rietor 
cannot  claim  the  benefit  of  the  provision  relieving 
him  from  the  liability  imposed  npon  him  by  the 
common  law  of  making  good  all  losses  and  damage 
to  his  guests'  goods  and  proj^erty,  unless  caused  by 
act  of  God,  or  of  i)ublic  enemies.  It  has  been  held 
in  Iowa  that  such  a  notice  as  this  one  does  not  af- 
fect the  landlord's  position."  2 

''To  what  extent  can  lie  shirk  his  liability?" 
queried  my  wife,  glancing  at  lier  large  and  well- 
filled  Saratoga. 

"That  depends  upon  the   particular  statute  of 

1  Giles  r.  Libby,  3G  Barr.  70.    But  see  Hyatt  v.  Taylor,  51 
Barb.  Go2,  and  riosonplanter  v,  Iloessle,  ul  N.  Y.  2G2. 
2Bodwe:i  v.  Bragg,  20  Iowa,  232. 


SAFES    AND    BAOQAGE. 


81 


tlic  country  or  State  in  wliicli  lie  liappcns  to  live. 
If  there  is  not  ii  special  law,  no  notice  will  bind  tho 
guest,  unless  it  can  bo  i)rovecl  that  he  lias  seen  it 
before  he  takes  possession  of  his  rooni,^  or  has 
assented  to  [{?  In  EnL^Hand,  an  innkeeper,  if  ho 
cause  at  least  one  copy  of  the  law,  (printed  in  plain 
tyj)e,)  to  be  exhibited  in  a  conspicuous  part  of  tho 
hall  or  entrance  to  his  inn,  will  not  be  liable  to 
make  good  any  loss  of  or  injury  to  goods  or  property 
brought  to  the  iun,  to  a  greater  extent  than  £oO, 
(unless  it  be  a  horse  or  other  animal,  or  any  gear 
appertaining  thereto,  or  any  carriage)  except  when 
such  goods  have  been  stolen,  lost,  or  injured, 
through  the  willful  act,  default,  or  neglect  of  tho 
publican,  or  any  servant  in  his  employ;  or  when 
such  goods  have  been  deposited  expressly  for  safe- 
keeping witii  mine  host,  who,  in  such  case,  may 
require  them  to  be  j)lace(l  in  a  box,  or  other  rece|>. 
tacle,  fastened  and  sealed  up  by  the  guest.^  In 
New  York,  the  law  is  very  similar,'*  being  to  the 
effect  that  the  hotel-keeper  shall  not  be  liable  for 
loss  of  money,  jewels,  ornaments,  or  valuables, 
when  he  shall  have  provided  a  safe  for  the  custody 
of  such  property,  and  shall  have  posted  a  notice  to 
that  effect  in  the  room  occupied  by  the  guest,  and 
the  guest  shall  have  neglected  to  deposit  such 
projjcrty  in  tho  safe.^     So  particular  arc  the  courts 

1  :Morc:nn  v.  Eavcy,  "0  L.  J.  Ex.  131 . 

2  Bernstein  v.  Sweeney,  oi'.  N.  Y.  Sup.  Ct.  271. 

simp.  St;it.,  2(»  ami  27  Viot.,  cliap.  41,  sec.  1.  A  siuiili.r 
statute  in  in  force  in  Ontario,  only  tho  money  is  limited  to 
forty  dollars.     (37  Vict.  O.,  chap  11,  sees.  1-4. 

4  Statutes  of  18^5,  chap.  421. 

fi  Wisconsin  has  a  like  law.    (Laws  of  1SG4,  chap.  318.) 


M 


s 


li  < 


m  i 

1  i 

! 

ij 

...     1                  ^ 

]   ■         \ 

i 

! 

%  :  , 

1 

I 

1 

1 

1^! 


82 


SAFES    AND    BAGGAGE. 


Upon  Ibis  ]i()int,  tliiit  when  llio  landlord  of  tho  Old 
Ship  Hotel,  Bi-iij^lilon,  Eiighuul,  nniiitcMitionallyhiid 
the  noticij  Jiiisprintcd,  so  that  tlie  litlhi  word  (ict 
was  oinitlocl  in  the  sentence,  wiiieh  should  havo 
been,  (as  I  have;  just  stated)  'where  such  i)roperty 
shall  have  been  stolen,  lost,  or  injured  tlirongh  tho 
willful  act,  defjiult,  or  nei^lect  of  such  inidvccper, 
or  any  servant  in  his  employ,'  the  Court  of  ^V))})eal 
held  that,  as  the  notice  contained  no  statement 
which  admitted  tho  continuance  of  the  common- 
law  liability  for  goods  or  i)roperty  stolen,  lost,  or 
injured  ihrougli  the  wiPful  act  of  the  iinikeeper  or 
his  servant,  the  ])ro[)rietor  was  not  i)rotected.  But 
Lord  Cairns  carefully  said  that  he  was  not  jjre- 
pared  to  hold  that  the  omission,  in  good  faith,  of  a 
word  or  two,  not  material  to  the  sense  and  to  tho 
operation  of  the  statute,  would  have  such  a  disas^ 
trous  effect."  ^ 

"  3Iy  husband,  remember 

*  Brevity's  the  soal  of  wit, 
Antl  tctliousncss  the  limbs  unci  outward  nourishes,' 

and  bo  brief.  IIow  can  my  poor  brain  hold  all  that 
you  have  said  ?  " 

"  Don't  be  alarmed,  my  dear,  there  is  doubtless 
plenty  of  room  in  your  brain  yet.  Cut  I  was  going 
on  to  say  that  though  there  is  a  tend'jucy  in  these 
degenerate  days  to  lessen  the  great  responsibility 
once  imposed  upon  these  i^ublicans  and  sinners,  and 
to  insist  upon  greater  care  on  the  part  of  the 
guests,  still  statutes  limiting  the  common-law  lia- 

1  Spice  V.  Bacon,  L.  II.  2  Ex.  Div.  4Goj  IG  A.  L.  J.  3S5. 


RATES    A>rD    BAGGAGE. 


83 


l/ility  of  iiinkot'pers  sluuild  not  l)o  extended  to 
include  proiierly  not  f;iirly  williiu  the  terms  of  the 
acts.  Where,  for  instance,  ;is  in  llie  New  York 
act,  money,  jewels,  or  oi-iiaments  are  exempted, 
then  ;ill  pi'operfy  of  a  ililTerent  kind,  inchidiiig  all 
things  useful  and  necessary  for  the  comfort  and 
convenience  of  the  LTuest — all  things  usually  carried 
and  worn  as  part  of  the  ordinary  apparel  and  out- 
lit,  as  well  as  all  things  (U-dinarily  used  or  suitable 
to  be  used  by  travelers  in  doors  or  out,  are  left  in 
statu  quo  ante  the  statute." 

"And  what  may  th;it  be?"  asked  ]\Irs.  L. 

"At  the  risk  of  the  innkeeper."  l 

"But  would  not  a  watch  be  considered  a  jewel 
or  an  ornament? " 

"The  law  is  very  watchful—" 

"Very  watchful,  indeed,  when  it  has  so  many 
watch  cases  that  it  considers  i)retty  little  Genevas 
neither  jewels  nor  ornaments,"  murmured  my  wiio 
eotto  voce. 

"The  law  is  very  watchful,"  I  went  on,  "over 
benighted  travelers,  and  has  decided  that  it  is  not;2 
nor  is  a  watch  and  chain,^  although,  by  the  way, 
the  Wisconsin  judges  have  decided  that  im  inn- 
keeper is  not  liable  for  the  loss  of  a  silver  or  a  gold 
watch  not  handed  over  for  safe  keeping,  their  act 
speaking  of  articles  of  gold  and  silver  manufacture.* 

iRemaly  r.  Lcland,  43  X.  Y.  538;  Kellogg  y.  Swecucy,  I 
Laus.  N.  y.  o'.)7. 

-liemaly  v.  Lelaml,  supra. 

8  liurustciu  i\  Sweeney,  o5  N.  Y.  271;  Krolin  v.  Sweeney,  2 
Daly,  X.  Y.  200;  Milfordr.  Wesley,  1  Wilson,  (Iml.)  110. 

4  Stewart  v.  Parsous,  21  Wis.  211. 


*>. 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


l^° 


ill    12.5 


»^   I—    12.2 

;^  lis  lllllio 


1.8 


1.25      1.4 

1.6 

^ 6"     _ 

► 

Photographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER, NY.  M580 

(716)  873-4503 


,\ 


SJ 


N> 


%^ 


^    - 


^ 


6^ 


.-**,^ 


f/j 


84 


SAFES    AND    B  AUG  AGE. 


The  exemption  is  intendetl  to  api'ly  only  to  such 
an  amount  of  money  and  to  such  jewels  and  orn.N 
inents  or  valuables,  as  the   landlord  himself,  if  a 
jjrudent  i)erson  and  traveling,  would  ])ut  in  a  safo 
(if  convenient)   when  retiring  at  night.     No  one, 
possessed  of  half  a  grain  of  that  scarce  commodity, 
common  sense,  would  suppose  that  it  was  the  inteU' 
tion  of  the  act  to  exempt  the  hotel  proprietors  from 
their  ol<l  commondaw  liability,  unless  the  traveler 
enij)ti(Ml   his  j)ockets  of  every  cent  of  money  and 
deposited  it,  with  his  watch  and   pencil-case,  in  the 
safe,  for  perchance  he  might  want  these  identical 
articles  ere  sweet  sleep   his   eyelids   closed.^      If, 
however,   the    innkeeper   has   complied    with    the 
re(piirements  of  the  act,  he  is  not  liable  for  jewelry 
stolen  from  the  bedroom,  even  though  the  guest 
has  not  been  guilty  of  negligence,  j)rovided  he  has 
had  time   and   opj)ortunity  to  make  the  deposit.^ 
My  old   friend,  Mrs.   Ilosenplanter,    was   terribly 
unfortunate   in   this  respect.      In   July,    18G3,  sho 
and  her  worthy  spouse  were  en  route  from  Trenton 
Falls  to    Saratoga,    and    arrived    at   the   Delavan 
House,  Albany,  at  three  in  the  afternoon.     As  din- 
ner was  on  the  table,  they  at  once  dressed  and  went 
to  dine.     In  about  twenty  minutes  tliey  returned 
to  their  room  and  found  that  in  the  meantime  their 
trunk  had  been   broken  open   and  $oOO  worth  of 
jewelry  taken  out.     My  friend  sued  the  i)roprietor, 
but  the  court  ungallantly  considered  that  she  had 
hud  suflicient  time  and  o])portunity  to  make  the  dc- 


1  Giles  V.  Libbey.  r<>  Bar.  70. 

2  rwoseniilanter  v.  rtocssle,  51  X.  Y.  262. 


SAFES    AND    BAGGAGE. 


85 


po.sit,  (thongli  slie  Ii.id  not  been  tliere  an  hour)  and 
BO  could  not  recover;  allliouujh  the  judj^c  admitted 
tliat  no  i)ers()n,  under  such  circumstances,  would 
have  heen  like!}'  to  have  handed  over  his  valuables 
to  the  inidveej)er,  and  that  there  must  always  be  a 
brief  period  after  the  arrival  of  a  guest  before  ho 
can  make  the  deposit,  and  that  during  those  golden 
moments  the  statute  afforchs  the  pul)lican  no  pro- 
tection. And,  by  the  way,  I  remember  that  in  this 
case  the  court  seemed  to  think  that  if  a  guest,  on 
retiring  for  the  night,  removes  a  watch  or  jewelry 
from  his  person,  or  leaves  money  iu  his  ])Ockct,  and 
neglects  to  deposit  the  same  in  the  safe,  the  hotel- 
keeper,  if  he  has  complied  ^v  ith  the  act,  is  exempt 
from  all  liability  in  case  of  loss."  ^ 

"  You  said,"  remarked  Mrs.  Lawyer,  whom  the 
mysteries  of  the  toilet  had  revived,  "you  said  that 
if  the  innkeeper  put  up  his  notice  he  would  not  be  lia- 
ble to  make  good  any  loss  of  goods  or  property.  Sure- 
ly, if  a  watch  is  neither  an  ornament  nor  a  jewel, 
within  the  meaning  of  the  act,^  it  is  goods  or  prop- 
erty, else  it  is  not  good  for  much." 

"It  is  very  (piestionable  whether  the  words 
'goods  or  |)roperty  '  include  the  necessary  baggage 
of  a  traveler,  his  watch  or  ])ersonal  effects,  or  such 
money  as  a  man  in  his  travels  usually  carries  with 
him;  in  fact,  down  South  it  was  held  that  it  did 
i.ot  comprehend  baggage." ^ 

"Well,  what  would   you   call   baggage?"   per* 

1  rtosenplantor  r.  Roesslc,  54  N.  Y.  202;  Bendetson  v.  Frenclj, 
40  N.  Y.  (listin'^uislicd. 
-  11  Can.  Law  Jour.  X.  S.  103. 
8  Topo  V.  Hull,  14  La.  An.  324. 


86 


SAFES    AND    BACKiAGE. 


':! 


5       I 


III 


sistcd  my  wife.  "  It  woiil«l  be  worth  while  knowing 
that,  if  an  innkeeper  is  always  responsible  therefor." 

"Just  wait  until  I  comfortably  settle  myself,  and 
I  will  dilate  on  that  fruitful  topic  until  you  are  sat- 
isfied." 

"  What  a  base  slanderer  is  Jules  Verne,"  said  my 
spouse,  as  she  daintily  nestled  between  the  sheets. 

"What  do  you  mean?"  I  asked. 

"Don't  you  remember  that  lie  says  that  American 
beds  rival  marble  or  granite  tables  for  hardness.  I 
am  sure  ho  never  stopped  at  a  good  hotel." 

"Now  for  a  Cau<lle  lecture  as  to  the  bairsracje,"  1 
said.  "  Impr'miis^  whatever  a  traveler  on  this  sub- 
lunary planet  takes  with  him  for  his  own  i)ersonal 
care  and  convenience,  or  even  for  his  instruction 
and  amusement,^  according  to  the  habits  and  wants 
of  the  station  of  society  to  which  he  belongs,  cither 
with  reference  to  the  immediate  necessities  or  tho 
ultimate  purpose  of  his  wanderings,  must  be  con- 
sidered personal  luggage ;  2  and  the  rules  of  law 
governing  the  innkeeper's  liability  for  the  safety  of 
a  guest's  baggage,  arc  the  same  as  those  which  reg- 
ulate the  resi)onsibility  of  common  carriers  as  to  a 
passenger's  baggage.3  Articles  of  jewelry,  such  as 
you  would  usually  wear,  are  baggage;*  but  not 
the  jewels  and  regalia  of  a  society.^    A  watch,8 

1  Hawkins  r.  ITolTinan,  0  Hill,  58G. 

2  Miicrow  V.  Cr.  W.  llw.  L.  K.  G  Q.  B.  023. 
8  Wilkins  v.  Eiirlo,  13  Abb.  N.  Y.  190. 

^Drooko  f.  Pickwick,  4  Biug.  218;  McGill  u.  Kowand,  3 
Pcnu.  St.  <15l. 

fi  Nc^'il)s  r.  Bay  State  S.  B.  Co.  4  Bosw.  589. 

c  Jones  V.  Voorhea,  10  Ohio,  115  ;  Miss.  C.  llw.  v.  Kennedy, 
41  Miss.  471. 


SAFES    AND    BAGGAGE. 


87 


except  in  Tennessee  ;i  finger-rings,2  Lul  not  silver 
s])Oons,^  come  within  the  same  category.  One  man 
Avas  allowed  to  have  two  gold  chains,  two  gold 
rings,  a  h)cket,  and  a  silver  pencil-case."  * 

"■He  ninst  have  been  on  his  way  to  see  Iiissweet- 
lieart,  I  fancy." 

"Gold  s])ectacles  are  l)airgage;''^  so  are  oj)era 
glasses,^  a  silver-inonnted  pistcd,  even  for  a  Sonthern 
lady,'''  duelling  pistols,^  or  a  gun ;  ^  but  not  a  colt."  i^ 

"A  horse,  then?"  was  facetiously  queried. 

"Xot  even  a  liobby-horse.i^  Brushes  and  razors, 
pens  and  ink,  are  baggage,!'-  and  perchance  a  j>re*. 
cnt.^^  So  are  the  mainisciipts  of  a  student ;!*  but 
not  the  pencil  sketches  of  an  artist;!-^  on  this  latter 
point,  however,  the  doctors  of  the  law  disagree.KI 
According  to  one  judge,  a  concertina,  a  llute,  or  a 
fiddle  might  i)ass  muster;  but  his  fellows,  liowcver 
much  music  they  had  in  themselves,  determined 


ir.onner  r.  ^Maxwell,  0  Humphrey,  021. 
2McCormick  v.  Iliulson  IJivor  Rw.  4  E.  D.  Smith,  181. 
SGiles  y.  Fauntloroy,  13  Md.  12(J. 
4  Brutz  V,  G.  T.  11.  .'>2  U.  C.  Q.  V>.  CO. 

6  Ro  II.  IM.  Wright,  Newberry  Admiralty;  Sasscen  v.  Clark, 
37  Ga.  242. 

0  Toledo  &  "SVabash  Riv.  r.  Hammond,  03  Ind.  370. 

7  Sasseen  v.  Chirk,  37  Ga.  242. 
8^Vood  V.  Devon,  i;'>  111.  74(). 

0  Davis  v.  C.  &  S.  Rw.  10  How.  Rr.  330. 
lOGilesr.  Fauntleroy,  13Md.  12<'.. 
UHudstcn  V.  Midland  Rw.  L.  II.  4  Q.  R.  300. 
1- Hawkins  r.  HoiTman,  0  Hill,  X.  Y.  Rep.  58!). 
13 Gt.  W.  Rev.  V.  Shepherd,  8  Ex.  38.    Rut  seo  Bell  v.  Drew, 
4  R.  D.  Smith,  5'.). 
i»  Hopkins  v.  AVestcott,  7  Am.  Law.  Rerr.  x.  S.  533. 
i^Mytton  V.  Midland  Rw.  4  H.  ^^  N.  <il5. 
iCMacrow  v.  Gt.  W.  Rw.  I..  R.  G  Q.  B.  G22,  Coekburn,  C.  J 


88 


SAFES    AND    BAGGAGE. 


not  to  be  niovcd  witli  concord  of  sweet  sounds,  so 
Ihey  out-voted  their  rausicid  confrere.^  Shiikc- 
spcare  saitli,  '  Let  no  such  man  bo  trusted ;'  so,  i)er- 
chance,  wc  must  conclude  tliat  tliese  judget^  woro 
astray  in  their  law.  In  Pennsylvania,  a  journeyman 
carpenter  may  take  his  tools  as  baggagi',-  lliough 
in  Ontario  he  cannot,^  any  more  than  a  blacksmith 
can  carry  his  forge,  or  a  farmer  his  i)luw.  Nor  can 
:i  merchant  take  his  wares,'*  nor  a  commercial  his 
BampleSjS  nor  a  banker  his  money,^  nor  a  lawyer  his 
papers,'^  though  an  M.  D.  may  take  his  surgical  in- 
Htruments  ;^  nor  may  a  seamstress  carry  her  sewing 
machine,^  nor — llark ! 


"  AVlmt  struin  is  tliis  that  comes  into  the  room, 
At  midniglit,  as  if  yoiulur  glcaminj^  li^l^t, 

Which  seiiins  to  wan(h;r  lilvo  llic  luoon, 

Woro  scra])h-frcighto(l  ?    Kow  it  dies  away 

111  a  most  fur-off  troinhlo,  and  is  still  ; 
Leaviug  a  charmed  silcuco. 

Hark  !  one  more  dip  of  lingers  in  the  wires  ! 

One  scaree-lieard  murmur  struggling  into  sound, 
And  fading  like  a  sunbeam  from  tlio  ground, 

Or  gilded  vanes  of  dimly  visioned  spires  !  " 

Here  u  fantasia  on  her  nasal  organ  (which  my 
wife  always  carried  with  her,  despite  the  decisions 

1  Brutz  V.  G.  T.  llw.  32  U.  0.  Q.  P..  G(). 

2  Toner  v.  llildebrand,  U  Pa.  St.  120. 
a  r>iutz  V.  G.  T.  11.  supra. 

4  Gilox  V.  Shej)herd,  8  Ex.  00;  Pardeo  v.  Drew,  25  Wend. 
451);  Shaw  v.  G.  T.  Kw.  7  U.  C.  C.  P.  4'J3. 

5  Belfast  li.  L.  &  C.  PvW.  v.  Keys,  0  Ho.  Lords  Cas.  550; 
Hawkins  v.  lIolTmau,  G  Hill,  580. 

c  Phelps  V.  London  &>  N.  W.  P.w.  19  C.  B.  N.  S.  32L 

7  Ibid. 

8  Giles  V.  Tauntleroy,  13  Md.  12G. 
»  Brutz  V.  G.  T.  llw.  supra. 


SAFES    AND    BAGGAGE. 


89 


of  anti-musical  jucIgjos)  vibrating  unmistakably 
through  the  chamber,  dispelled  the  idea  of  heavenly 
visitants,  and  informed  me  that  my  spouse  had 
journeyed  off  to  that  land  of  Xod,  from  whose 
bourn  no  bauji'ai'e  returns.  Snorimjf,  like  vawn- 
ing,  is  infectious  —  sometimes;  and  this  was  one  of 
the  times. 

•  •  *  #  • 

"  'Tis  sweet  to  sec  the  day  dawn  creeping  grad- 
ual thro'  the  sky,"  and  feel  that  there  is  for  one  yet 
a  little  sleep,  a  little  slumber,  a  little  folding  of  the 
hands  lo  sleep;  but  even  in  the  most  fashionable 
hotel  the  hour  will  at  length  come  when  one  must 
shake  off  dull  sloth  and  burst  the  bonds  of  sleep, 
which  at  night  are  but  as  s})ider's  webs,  but  in  the 
mornini]:  have  become  even  fetters  of  brass:  and 
that  miserable  hour  (^ame  in  time  to  me. 

When  I  went  down  stairs  to  exjimine  the  regis- 
ter to  SCO  who  had  arrived  durinij^  the  ni<dit,  I  found 
some  excitement  existinix  around  the  ollice.  On  in- 
quiry,  (and  who  except  a  German  savant  ever  beheld 
a  row,  small  or  great,  without  seeking  to  know  the 
wherefore  thereof,)  I  learned  that  a  gent  had  the 
day  before  given  the  clerk  a  pocket-book  to  keep, 
and  that  it  had  been  stolen  out  of  the  desk;  the 
owner  was  demanding  restitution,  dollar  for  dollar 
and  cent  for  cent,  if  not  eye  for  eye  and  tooth  for 
tooth.  The  landlord  said  that  the  man  had  been 
ncffliixcnt  in  not  tellinti:  the  clerk  there  was  money 
in  the  book. 

"  No,  I  wasn't,"  was  the  reply,  "  there  was  only 
$13G  iu  it;  and  what  but  money  would  you  expect 


I 


90 


SAFES    AND    BAGGAGE. 


to  1)0  in  .1  pocket-book  —  a  tooth-pick?  —  acic^ar? 
I  know  that  in  Iowa  an  innkeeper  liad  to  casli  up 
in  a  .similar  case,^  and  I'll  make  yon  do  it  if  there 
is  law  or  jnsticc  in  this  ])art  of  the  American  eagle's 
cyry." 

"In  Kentncky,"  said  a  hy-stanlcr,  who  seemed 
to  hail  from  that  State,  "an  hotel-keeper  was  held 
liable  for  tlie  loss  by  robbery  of  pocket  money  re- 
tained by  a  guest  in  his  own  possession.*' ^ 

"And  in  Maryland,"  said  another  Sontherner, 
"it  has  been  decided  that  a  traveler  need  not 
deposit  in  the  oflicc  safe  any  money  reasonably 
necessary  for  his  expenses  that  ho  may  have  with 
him."  3 

"Yes,"  I  said,  "there  are  other  cases,  also,  which 
appear  to  establish  the  point  that  a  sojourner  at  an 
hotel  may  keep  in  his  pocket  or  in  his  room  money 
enough  to  pay  his  daily  way,  and  that  if  his  i)urso 
be  surreptitiously  disposed  of,  the  landlord  must 
make  good  his  loss;*  yet  still  there  is  a  very  lato 
New  York  decision,  wliere  my  friend  Hyatt  found 
to  his  cost,  that  where  a  landlord  provides  a  safe,' 
and  puts  nji  the  usual  notices  about  it,  and  the  vis- 
itor chooses  not  to  place  his  money  in  it,  the  pro- 
prietor of  the  establishment  is  not  responsible  for 
the  loss  of  any  of  the  cash,  not  even  for  what  would 


\ 


iShoccraft  v.  Bailey,  25  Iowa,  C53. 

2  Wcisciugcr  v.  Taylor,  1  Bush,  275. 

^Maltby  v.  Chapman,  25  Md.  307;  a  decision  under  Md. 
Code,  art.  70,  sees.  5,  G. 

4  Taylor  i\  Monnot,  4  Duer,  (N".  Y.)  IIG;  Van  Wyck  v.  How- 
ard, 12  How.  (N.  Y.)  Pr.  U7;  Stanton  v.  Leland,4E.  D.  Smith, 
(N.  v.)  88;  Simon  v.  Miller,  7  La.  An.  3G0. 


8AFE3    AND    BAGGAQE. 


91 


I 


1)C  roquired  for  the  guest's  ordinary  traveling  ex- 
])en^es."  1 

"You  speak  of  money  enough  for  one*s  daily 
wants  and  traveling  expenses  being  all  that  for 
which  ail  innkeeper  is  liahle,"  said  a  gentleman 
who  had   hitherto  been  a  (piiet  listener. 

"Well,  sir,  I  do  not  like;  to  sj»eak  <logmatically, 
but  it  !-eeins  that  the;  tendency  of  some  modern  de- 
cisions is  to  h(»l«l  that  the  innkeeper  !-houl<l  not  bo 
liable  for  any  money  bev«»nd  that  amount,  even 
though  ]iut  in  a  safe,  unless  a  special  contract  has 
been  ma<le,  or  it  has  been  actually  delivered  to  the 
j)roi)rietor  or  liis  servant,  with  notice  not  only  of 
the  kind  of  property  it  was,  but  also  of  the  amount. 
It  is  not  siiflicient  to  mark  a  ])ackage  'money,'  for 
it  is  argued  that  It  would  be  highly  unjust,  and  not 
founded  upon  any  principle  on  which  an  imdvcep- 
cr's  liability  rests,  for  a  traveler  to  ])ring  into  an 
inn,  unobserved,  any  amount  of  valuables,  without 
notice  to  the  innkeeper,  and  hold  him  rcsponsil)le 
for  their  safe  keeping.  There  shouM  bo  a  restric- 
tion or  qualification  of  such  liability,  if  it  exists; 
and  that  must  be  a  warning  to  the  innkeeper  of  the 
extra  ri>k  he  is  about  to  run.'^  Dut  the  Court  of 
A})peals  in  Xew  York  State  takes  a  <lii'fereFit  view, 
and  holds  that  if  one  complies  with  tiie  law,  and 
deposits  his  money  in  the  safe,  the  innkeeper  is  lia- 
ble for  the  full  amount,  irrespective  of  the  question 
wlu  Lhcr  or  not  it  was  all  required  for  the  purposes 
of  the  journey.2 

1  Hyatt  V.  Tayloi-,  51  Barb.  N.  Y.  G32;  43  N.  Y.  259. 

2  Wilkins  t'.  Earle,  18  Abb.  N.  Y.  I'JO. 
8  Wilkins  V.  Eurle,  44  N.  Y.  172. 


SAFES    AND    BACOAOE. 


Mf 


V 


' 


"And,  I  might  Jidd,"  said  my  interlocutor,  "  tlio 
celebrated  Story  made  no  exception,  and  seemed  to 
consider  it  one  of  the  A  \i  C  prin(;i|»les  of  law  that 
an  innkeeper  is  liable  for  the  loss  of  the  money  of 
liis  guest,  stolen  from  his  room,  as  well  as  for  his 
goods  and  chattels,  and  that  such  liability  extends 
to  all  the  money  of  the  guest  placed  within  the  inn, 
and  is  not  conlined  to  .such  sums  only  as  are  neces- 
siny  and  designed  for  ordinary  traveling  expenses.l 
Then,  sir,  our  great  Chancellor  Kent  lays  it  down 
as  admitting  of  no  ])eradventure,  that  an  innkeeper 
is  bound  absolutely  to  kec])  safe  the  property  of  his 
guest  within  the  inn,  whether  he  knows  of  it  or  not, 
and  that  his  responsibility  extends  to  all  his  guest's 
servants,  and  to  all  the  goods,  chattels,  and  mt)iu*ys 
of  the  guest,  their  safe  custody  being  part  of  tiie 
contract  to  feed  and  lodge  for  a  suitable  reward.^ 
If  you  are  not  satisfied  with  the  words  of  these  men 
— alike  the  ])ride  and  tlie  ornament  of  America — 
let  us  cross  the  ocean  and  hear  what  Sir  Wm. 
Blackstone  saith  ;  he  speaketh  after  this  wise :  that 
an  innkee[)er's  lU'gligence  in  suffering  a  robbery  uf 
Lis  guest  is  an  implied  consent  to  the  robbery,  and 
he  must  make  good  the  loss.*^  Then  Lord  Tenter- 
den  held  that  there  was  no  distinction  between 
money  and  goods;  and  all  the  other  judges  of  tho 
court  said  'amen.'  "* 

"  Excuse  my  interru2)ting  you  in  your  interesting 
remarks,"  said  I. 

1  Story's  Commentarios,  sec.  481. 

2  Comineutaries,  sue.  470. 
8  1  Black.  Cum.  430. 

*  Keut  r.  Shuckard,  2  B.  &  Ad.  803. 


SAFES    AND    BAOQAGE. 


03 


• 


"Quite  excusable,  Bir,  fori  am  only  speaking 
in  llie  cause  of  riujlit,  and  because  I  ihink  Honio 
judges  are  inclined  to  cut  loose  from  the  safe  moor- 
ings of  the  old  common  huv,  rendered  di-ar  to  us  Ijy 
the  adjudications  of  the  learned  men  of  llie  liencli 
for  generations  J  ast,  hoth  iu  tlie  old  and  new 
worlds;  and  1  am  satislicd  that  a  contrary  doctrine 
will  be  terril»le  in  its  clfccts  iu  this  great  commer- 
ci.d  community  of  ours,  where  our  business  men 
.sjiend  so  large  a  jjortion  (»f  their  time  at,  inns  in 
l»ursuit  of  their  calling.^  But  what  were  you  going 
to  say?" 

'•Simi>ly,"  I  remarked,  "that  in  the  case  before 
Tenterden  the  amount  lost  was  only  £o(),  and  it  was 
(stated  to  have  been  ke[)t  to  meet  daily  expenses 
only,  lie  said  he  could  see  no  distinction  in  this  re- 
spect between  an  innkeeper  and  a  carrier;  and 
there  arc  many  cases  to  the  effect  that  a  carrier  will 
not  be  responsible  for  any  money  of  a  passenger 
except  what  is  needful  for  traveling  purposes  and 
personid  use,-  unless  the  loss  was  occasioned  by  tho 
gross  neMisjrence  of  the  carrier." 

"Well,  other  English  judges  have  likewise  held 
that  an  innkeeper's  liability  is  not  restricted  merely 
to  the  guests'  travelling  exiKmses;**^  and  if  we  re- 
cross  the  mighty  ocean  we  Hi:  I  our  ju«]ges  in  firm 
accord  with  their  confreres."  * 

1  Per  ^IcCann,  J.,  Wilkina  v.  Earle. 

"  Orange  Co.  Dank  v.  lirown,  D  Wend.  8r>;  "Weed  v.  Saratoga 
&  Sell.  llw.  I'J  Yv'end.  D21 ;  lied,  ou  liailways,  vol.  2,  pp. 
Co,  58. 

"  Coggs  V.  Barnard,  1  Sm.  Lcadin<T  Cases,  r.o:) ;  I^uo  v. 
Cotton,  12  INIod.  487;  Wharton  on  luukocperd,  07. 

*  Colo  V.  Goodwin,  19  AVend. 


-r»— 


M 


RAFE-S    ANT)    BAOOAOE. 


y    M 


I 


♦ 


I 


I! 


"But,''  I  s.i'kI,  "Imt  in  one  caso  tlie  nmonnt 
was  oiilv  two  limnlrc'il  dollars,^  :ni<l  in  another  it 
was  l)Ut  twcntv-Iivo  dollars.^  And  in  sti  1  another 
caso  dccidftl,  as  yon  say,  altiiDni^h  tlio  casli  lost  was 
nioro  than  snfl'n'icnt  to  pay  tlio  expenses  of  the  man 
from  wliom  it  was  taken,  still  it  was  not  liis  own; 
lie  merely  held  it  to  ]»ay  others,  who  were  stojipini^  at 
tho  samo  honse,  and  were  witnesst^s  in  a  snit  which 
iho   money-holder  was   snperintendini^,  or  to   j)ay 


th 


len*  expenses  a 


d 


ttl 


le  iim 


?? 


"On  tho  other  hand,"  said  tho  defender  of  tho 
rii^hts  of  the  j>eoj)le,  '' in  a  C'alil'ornia  hotel  there 
was  this  notice:  'Dc^posit  your  valuables  and 
money  in  tho  safe  at  tho  ollieo ; '  and  a  guest  .n,c- 
cordiii'jlv  dc'posited  a  larLjc  amount  of  I'old  dust 
and  coin,  which  the  pro[)rietor  received  without 
objection.  Afterwards,  tho  clerk  was  knocked 
down  and  the  safe  rohhed,  it  not  being  locked,  and 
tho  ])ublican  was  heM  liable  for  tho  whole  amount.'* 
And  where  a  man  had  stolen  from  his  room  a  pack- 
age of  jewelry,  Avliich  the  clerk  had  ti)ld  him  would 
bo  quite  safe  tlu're,  the  host  was  held  liable,  even 
in  New  York  State.^  And  so,  in  Kentucky,  where 
a  safe  was  robbed  bv  a  discharixcd  clerk,  although 
in  this  last  caso  the  innkeeper  had  told  the  guest 
that  he  would  not  be  responsible  for  any  money  put 
in  it.*^     It  seems  to  me  to  be  somewhat  absurd  that 

iQuintiu  r.  Courtney,  Hay.  (N".  C.)  41. 

2  Giles  V.  Libby,  '.\:>  liarb.  70. 

3  rierksliiro  W-  ollcu  Co.  v.  PnK'tor,  7  Cusli.  417. 

4  rinkcrtou  r.  AVoochvard,  .'>.'»  Cal.  i3o7. 
''Ijundeton  r.  Froncli,  41  Ilarb.  .1. 

tt  Woodward  v.  lUrd,  4  liusli.  (Ky . )  510. 


SAFES    AND    BAGGAan. 


the  l:i\v  sliouM  say  that  unless  you  deposit  your 
inoiicy  in  i\n)  hotel  safo  tlio  i)r()j)ric'tor  will  not  1)C 
lialilo  for  its  loss,  and  tlion  when  you  liavc  j)laced 
it  ill  tho  ahsoluto  and  innii('diat(!  control  of  iho  inn- 
kc'OjK'r,  and,  j)orhaps,  iiis  dishonest  servant,  you 
biiouid  bo  met  tho  next  day,  when  asking  for  your 
own,  by  the  smirking  and  bowing  proj)rietor,  re- 
marking, smivlfer  in  modo :  'True,  sir  you  gave 
mo  twentv  thousand  dollars  for  safe-kee]>in'^%  and  I 

«  A 

jnit  it  in  my  safo;  but,  like  all  riches,  it  has  taken 
to  itself  wings  and  flown  away.  However,  my  dear 
Fir,  here  are  one  hundred  dollars  to  pay  your  expen- 
ses, and  take  you  comfortably  to  your  journey's 
end.'" 

*■  There  ap])ears  to  be  something  to  be  said  on 
both  sides,"  I  remarked,  wearying  of  the  discussion 
from  which  all  others,  save  my  adversary  and  my- 
self, had  lone;  since  iled  ;  for  when  the  lime  comes 


f. 


fui 


il 


to  b 


d, 


ill 


or  my  luneral  exj)ensesto  be  meurrcMi,  no  one  wi 
be  able  (whatever  my  readers  may  think)  to  say  of 
Uie,  as  they  did  of  Lord  Mucaulay, 

'Tlicro  was  no  pain  liko  silence,  no  constraint 
So  dull  as  unanimity,    lie  breatiicd 
An  atmospluMO  (if  arijnmcnt,  iu>r  slirnnk 
From  niakinf,',  wlxre  lie  could  nut  lind,  excuso 
For  controversial  liulit.'  " 


"But  I  have  the  best  of  it,"  said  my  antagonist. 
*'It  is  :i  case  of  New  York  biate,  like  Athanasius, 
contra  7nundutn?^ 

"At  all  events,  you  will  agree  with  me  tliat  an 
innkeeper  will  not  be  liable  for  loss  of  Ins  guest's 
money  when  lie  has  intrusted  it  to  the  cure  of  some 


i 


F; 


I 


i 


96 


SAFES    AND    BAGGAQB. 


one  else  on  the  premises  in  whom  lie  reposes  confi* 
dencc,"  ^  I  replied. 

"Certainly;  and  I  remember  a  case  where  a  man 
gave  a  bag  of  money  to  the  step-dangliter  of  an 
innkeei)er  with  whom  he  was  particularly  intimate, 
havinGT  courted  her  in  marriaire,  and  the  bau:huvini» 
disappeared,  the  owner  tiiereof  got  nothing.'^  And 
I  trust  that  you  will  not  deny  that  tlie  iimkeeper  is 
responsible,  notwithstanding  any  notices  up  about 
depositing  in  the  safe,  if  the  guest  has  not  had  time 
to  get  his  valuables  put  in  there  after  his  arrival."  ^ 

"  Oh,  yes ;  and  he  is  liable  for  their  loss  after  the 
visitor  has  taken  them  out  preparatory  to  his  de- 
parture." * 

Here    two    bows    were   exchanrzed,   two   backs 


turned,  and  four  lei^s  walked  off. 


o 


illouser  V.  Tulley,  02  Pa.  St.  92. 
2  Sneidor  v.  Geiss,  1  Yoates,  24. 

SEoseuplauteri;.  Iwocsole,  54  N.  Y.  202;  Bendetson  v.  French, 
40  N.  Y. 
4  Stanton  v.  Leland,  4  E.  D.  Smith,  88. 


ClIAPTEn  VI. 


IIRE,    KATS,    AND    DUKGLARS. 

After  a  time,  business  called  me  in  the  direction 
in  -which  the  "tide  of  empire  rolls,"  and  we  took  n 
lung,  but  by  no  means  tedious  or  monotonous  jour«. 
ney,  along  that  metal  ribbon  which,  stretching  from 
ocean  to  ocean,  unites  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific. 
The  train  was  well  supplied  witli  saloon  cars,  bal- 
cony cars,  restaurants,  smoking  cars,  palace  cars, 
and  sleeping  cars.  Wo  encountered  none  of  tho 
adventures  so  graphically  described  by  tho  writer 
of  the  veracious  history  of  Phineas  Fogg;  no  herd 
of  ten  thousand  buffaloes  delayed,  no  daring  band 
of  Sioux  attacked,  our  train;  wc  had  neither  duel 
nor  flying  leap  over  bridges,  crashing  down  into 
abysmal  depths.  We  ate,  we  drank,  wc  slept,  we 
talked,  wc  gazed ;  wc  gazed,  we  talked,  we  slept, 
we  drank,  we  ate ;  and  that  was  all. 

At  last  we  reached  the  wondrous  "  City  of  the 
West,"  and  beheld  the  mighty  Avaters  of  the  Pacific 
throbbing  upon  the  shores  and  along  the  piers  of 
San  Francisco.  To  the  Palace  Hotel  we  drove,  and 
there  wo  took  up  our  quarters,  glad  enough  to  rest 
our  brains,  dizzied  and  dazed  with  our  flight  across 
the  continent. 

Refreshed  by  the  quiet  rest  and  needful  repose 
of  a  long  night's  sleep,  my  wife  insisted  upon  tak- 
ing Ji  stroll  through  the  magnificent  hotel  in  which 
we  were  now  quartered. 

».  [97  3 


08 


FIRE,   rtATS,    AND    BURGLARS. 


!     \ 


"  If  there  was  a,  railway  running  along  all  tlio 
passages  and  corridors  wo  might  manage  to  get 
round  tlic  Palace  Hotel  in  a  morning,"  I  said,  "but 
Bteam  has  not  yet  been  introduced  for  that  purpose. 
To  be  sure,  there  is  tlio  pneumatic  tube,  but  that 
is  not  quite  largo  enough  unless  you  are  willing  to 
go  without  a  jiannier." 

"How  large  is  the  house?"  asked  JNIrs.  Lawyer. 

"Why,  it  is  three  hundred  and  fifty  feet  long  by 
two  hundred  and  seventy-five  broad." 

"Let  us  hurry,  then  ;  if  it  is  so  huge  we  have  no 
time  to  lose,"  was  the  brave  response. 

"Well,  here's  an  elevator,"  I  remarked. 

We  stepped  into  one  of  tlio  four  passenger 
elevators,  which  are  run  by  hydraulic  power.  Tlio 
motion  was  almost  imperceptible,  and  rapid  as  the 
downward  flight  of  a  swallow.  The  young  gent  in 
charge  told  us  that  it  could  run  from  bottom  to  top 
and  back  again  to  bottom,  through  the  whole  seven 
stories  of  the  house,  in  ten  seconds. 

On  arriving  on  the  ground  floor  we  first  inspected 
the  grand  court  and  the  rooms  on  either  side,  and 
then  turned  into  one  of  the  long  corridors,  from 
which  my  wife  insisted  upon  visiting  the  handsome 
stores,  opening  off  with  tlieir  tempting  wares.  I  left 
her  making  ])urcliases  while  I  entered  the  barber's 
saloon,  and  in  one  of  the  easiest  of  patent  adjustible 
chairs,  by  the  deftest  of  tonsors,  with  the  keenest 
of  razors,  allowed  myself  to  be  shaved  ;  for  Mrs.  L. 
loved  not  to  see  a  man  with  his  nose  i)rojecting 
over  a  cascade  of  hair,  and  desired  that  my  face 
might  preserve  its  human  outline,  instead  of  pre- 


FIRE,   EATS,   AND    BURGLARS. 


00 


sontinjx — <'^s  sl^o  sarcastically  remarked — no  cllstlnc- 
tion  from  the  pliysiogiiomy  of  a  bearded  owl  or  a 
Barbary  ape. 

No  fear  of  losin<x  nose  or  cheek  while  in  that 
place.  But,  after  all,  it  is  not  a  sublime  attitude 
for  a  man  to  sit,  with  lathered  chin,  thrown  back- 
ward, and  have  his  nose  made  a  handle  of.  To  be 
shaved,  however,  is  the  fashion  of  American  respect- 
ability, and  it  is  astonishing  how  gravely  men  look 
at  each  other  M'hen  they  are  all  in  the  fashion. 
For  the  benefit  of  those  unfortunates  who  get 
gashed  betimes  beneath  the  operator's  hand,  I 
would  say,  that  if  a  barber  attempts  to  shave  you 
he  must  possess  tlio  necessary  education  and  skill, 
and  show  the  diligence  of  an  expert  in  that  line, 
otherwise  he  will  be  liable  for  damaGres  sustained.! 
Of  course  if  you  suffer  an  inexperienced  volunteer 
to  practice  upon  your  chin  and  you  come  to  grief, 
you  have  no  remedy,  unless  the  amateur  is  guilty  of 
gross  negligence ;  but  if  one  unskilled  in  the  art 
pushes  himself  forward  and  seizes  you  by  the  nasal 
projection,  to  the  exclusion  of  a  ])rofessional,  ho  is 
expected  to  use  the  skill  usually  possessed  by  a 
master  of  the  art.^  In  Blinois,  it  would  seem  that 
if  one  renders  his  services  free,  gratis,  and  for 
nothing,  he  will  be  only  liable  for  gross  negligence  \^ 
but  the  point  appears  open  to  argunnnt.^  I  i)re- 
Slime  that  no  one  would  be  so  foolish  as  to  suppose 
that  a  professor  of  the  tonsorial  art  is  bound   to 

1  ^Yha^ton  on  Xoglif];pnco,  socs.  TO,  730. 

2AVliartoii  on  Ncj^.  soo.  7uJ;  Hood  v.  Crimes,  13  li.  Mon.  188, 

8  ratchoy  V.  AVest,  23  111.  .'385. 

*  Wharton  on  Negligence,  sees.  437,  Gil. 


1; 


100 


FIRE,   RATS,   AND    BURGLARS. 


attend  to  your  hirsiito  appendages  willy-nilly ;  but 
when  ho  does  take  you  in  hand  ho  must  carry  the 
operation  through  without  any  sins  of  omission  or 
commission.! 

When  I  rejoined  my  wife,  she  asked  to  descend 
into  the  basement  regions,  so  down  wo  went,  and 
found  bath-rooms  and  laundry-rooms,  wine-rooms, 
pantries,  etc.,  in  well  nigh  endless  succession. 

"How  many  napkins  do  you  use  a  day?"  in- 
quired Mrs.  L.  of  the  individual  whoso  duty  it  waa 
to  reside  in  a  region  of  perpetual  steam  and  damp. 

"About  three  thousand,"  was  the  response ;  "  and 
four  hundred  table-cloths,  if  people  are  reasonably 
careful." 

"  I  would  like  some  things  washed ;  how  soon 
could  you  do  them  ?  "  asked  my  wife. 

"If  they  are  large  articles,  you  can  have  them 
back  in  your  room  in  fifteen  minutes;  if  small,  iu 
seven  minutes." 

"That's  rather  quick,"  I  remarked. 

"  Well,  sir,  I  have  known  a  man  to  have  his  shirt 
washed  while  taking  a  bath ;  and  a  handkerchief, 
sent  down  the  tube  dirty,  was  returned  clean  during 
the  time  ho  was  arranging  his  neck-tie,  or  parting 
his  back  hair." 

On  we  went,  to  the  pantries,  and  saw  the  thou- 
sands and  tens  of  thousands  of  pieces  of  china  and 
crockery,  glass  and  cutlery. 

"A  breakage  occasionally  would  not  matter 
much,  among  so  many  thousands  of  pieces,"  I  re- 
marked. 

1  "NVliarton  on  Negligence,  sec.  731. 


FIRE,  RATS,  AND  BURGLARS. 


101 


"It  would  TUfittcr  more  to  the  man  who  broke 
the  article  than  to  the  hotel  proprietor,  I  caleulate," 
responded  the  man  in  charge  of  this  legion  of 
crockery  and  glassware. 

*'  Well,  sir,  that  depends  on  how  the  breakage 
occurred.  I  take  it  that  a  guest  at  an  hotel  is,  with 
respect  to  tli(;  tilings  tliat  he  uses,  in  tlie  same 
position  as  if  he  hired  tliem — in  fact  he  does  hire 
them;  audit  is  well  settled  that  every  hirer  of  a 
chattel  is  bound  to  use  the  thini;  let  to  him  in  a 
pro})er  and  reasonable  manner,  to  take  the  same 
care  of  it  that  a  i)rudent  and  cautious  man  ordina- 
rily takes  of  his  own  property,  and  to  return  it  to 
the  owner  at  the  i)roper  time,  in  as  good  condition 
as  it  w:is  in  when  lie  got  it,  subject  only  to  deteri- 
oration produced  by  ordintiry  wear  and  tear,  and 
reasonable  use,  and  injuries  caused  by  accidents 
which  have  happened  without  any  default  or 
neglect  on  the  part  of  the  hirer.^  The  owner  must 
stand  to  all  the  ordinary  risks  to  which  the  chattel 
is  naturally  liable,  but  not  to  the  risks  occasioned 
by  negligence  or  want  of  ordinary  care  on  the  part 
of  the  hirer.2  In  fact,  as  a  late  writer  has  very 
well  put  it,  the  hirer  of  a  chattel  is  in  no  sense  an 
insurer,  nor  is  he  liable  for  culpa  Icvif^suiKi^  or  that 
apocryphal  phrase  of  inilnitesinial  negligence  which 
stands  in  antithesis  to  the  dlligcntia  dilU/entlsslnia 
which  the  hiw  does  not,  as  a  continuous  service, 
exact."'^ 


t 


1  Jones  on  Bailments,  88. 

2  Addison  on  Contracts,  415. 

•  Wliartoil  on  Negligence,  sec.  713. 


102 


FIRE,  RATS,  AND  BURGLARS. 


h 


I 


As  I  paused,  the  man  hastily  remarked  that  lio 
liad  no  time  to  stop  and  talk,  and  my  wife,  fearing 
that  the  subterranean  air  was  affecling  my  brain, 
said  tliat  we  had  better  go  up  stairs ;  so,  like  the 
youtli  with  the  strange  device,  "  Excelsior"  was  our 
motto. 

"  Take  that  box  of  matches,"  said  Mrs.  Lawyer. 
"We  may  want  them  when  off  picnicking." 

"  We  had  better  not.  They  are  left  there  for 
the  i)uri)ose  of  lighting  cigars,  and  can  only  be 
taken  in  a  limited  manner.  Taking  them  by  the 
boxful  would  be  larceny,  if  the  intent  is  felonious,  'i 
I  returned, 

"  What  a  terrible  place  for  a  fire !  "  suggested  my 
wife. 

"  Yes,"  I  replied.  "  No  fire  would  have  the 
eliixhtest  chance  here.  What  with  the  huGfc  reser- 
Voir  supplied  by  artesian  wx'lls,  the  seven  tanks  on 
the  roof,  the  three  large  steam  fire-])umps,  the 
watchmen  going  their  constant  rounds,  and  the 
thermostats  in  every  room  in  the  hotel,  (which, 
when  the  temperature  is  raised  to  120°,  cause  a  bell 
to  be  rung  continuously  in  the  office,  and  show  the 
number  of  the  room  affected  in  the  annunciator)  a 
spark  could  scarce  develop  itself  into  a  blaze  before 
its  discovery." 

"Well,  but,"  urged  Mrs.  Sawyer,  "suppose, 
notwithstanding  these  precautions,  a  fire  did  take 
place,  and  our  baggage  "was  destroyed,  would  the 
landlord  have  to  pay  for  it?" 

"  I  can  only  say,  my  dear,  that  on  the  other  side 


iMitclium  V.  The  State,  45  Ala.  29. 


FIRE,    RATS,   AND    BURGLARS. 


103 


of  tlic  continent,  in  the  State  of  Vermont,  where  a 
man  sued  to  recover  tlie  value  of  a  span  of  liorses, 
a  set  of  double  harness,  two  horse-blankets,  and 
two  halters,  it  M'as  decided  by  the  court  that  an 
liotel-keeper  is  not  liable  for  property  lost  by  fire 
where  the  conllagration  is  occasioned  by  unavoida- 
ble casualty  or  superior  force,  without  any  negli- 
gence on  his  })art  or  that  of  his  servants.^  An  Eng- 
lish decision  tends  in  tlie  same  direction ;2  .and  in 
MicluLjan  it  was  held  that  lie  was  not  liable  for  the 
horses  and  wagons  of  a  guest,  burned  in  a  barn, 
without  liis  neuflii'ence.'^  J>ut  the  English  decision 
has  been  questioned  both  here  and  there,*  and  in 
New  York  it  was  considered  that  the  liability  of  a 
publican  extended  to  the  loss  of  goods  by  fire, 
(though  the  cause  of  it  was  unknown)  provided 
that  the  guest  is  free  from  all  blame  in  the  matter.^ 
In  that  State  they  have  a  law  exempting  landlords 
from  liability  for  the  loss  by  fire  of  a  guest's  goods 
in  a  barn  or  outhouse,  if  it  is  shown  that  the  dam- 
age is  the  w^ork  of  an  incendiary,  and  occurred 
without  negligence  on  their  part;  but  the  burden  of 
proving  tliis  is,  of  course,  upon  the  innkeeper,'^ 
and  my  own  humble  opinion  is  that  an  innkeeper 
is  liable  for  all  such  losses  unless  they  are  caused 
by  a  public  enemy,  or  an  act  of   God,  (lightning, 

1  Merrill  v.  Clagliorn,  23  Vt.  177;  also  Vanco  v.  Throckmor* 
ton,  5r>ush.  (Ky.)41. 
-Dawson  v.  Chamney,  5  Q.  P..  (N.  S.)  1G4. 
8  Cutler  V.  Bonney,  30  :Mich.  25!). 

■*  Mateer y.  Brown,  1  Cal.  22j;  Wharton  on  Neg.  p.  111. 
e  Ilulett  V.  Swift,  33  N.  Y.  571. 
CFaucott  V.  NichoUs,  G4  N.  Y.  377. 


104 


rini:,  rats,  and  bui:glar3. 


w 


I 


or  an  earthquake)  or   tbo  owner  lias   been   negli- 
gent.''^ 

#  #  #  #  « 

*'Ileigli-ho!"  sighed  my  wife,  as,  exhansterl  with 
her  h)ng  tramp  througli  tiic  mammoth  liouse,  yhe 
sank  into  a  hiYurious  arm-(;hair  on  our  return  to 
our  own  apartment,  preparatory  to  an  excursion 
tlirough  the  city.  "Look  at  lliat  liorrid  little 
thing!"  she  exclaimed  the  next  instant,  and  start- 
ing up  with  enough  vehemence  to  frighten  a  lion, 
she  scared  away  a  little  mouse  that  had  been  nil> 
bling  at  her  reticule.  "  The  little  wretch!  see  how 
it  has  S])oilt  my  nice  new  satchel !  It  must  have 
been  the  cakes  inside.  Can  I  make  the  landlord 
give  me  a  new  one?'  she  avariciously  added. 

"  Humph  !  I  wish  that  some  one  had  asked  mo 
that  question  who  could  afford  to  ])ay  me  for  a 
carefully  considered  oi)inion,"  I  replied. 

"  Why  can't  you  tell  me? " 

"Because  1  scarcely  know  what  to  say.  The 
point  seems  open  to  argument.  I  don't  remember 
any  case  where  the  depredations  of  mice  have  occu- 
pied the  attention  of  a  court  of  law,  although 
there  liave  been  several  decisions  on  the  subject  of 
rats." 

"Well,  and  what  ■were  they?"  exclaimed  my 
wife,  impatiently.  "That  a  man  can  keep  the 
nasty  things  in  his  liouse,  and  let  them  damage  the 
property  of  his  guests,  and  not  pay  for  them  ?  " 

"  In  one  case  where  rats  gna^vt•tl  a  hole  in  the 
bottom  of  a  boat,  and  the  water,  coming  in  at  the 


iMateer  v.  Brown,  1  Cal.  221. 


Fir.E,    RATS,    AND    BURGLARS. 


105 


lo.'ik,  (Inmncjorl  c^oorls  on  hoard,  the  owner  of  tho 
Vessel  was  held  liable  for  llie  performance  of  tlioso 
rodents;^  and  in  anotlier  casi',  earriers  were  lield 
responsible  for  their  depredations  on  hoard  a  sliip, 
althonj^li  there  were  cats  and  nianujooses  on  bo.'ird, 
and  the  owners  had  availed  themselves  of  the  vaU 
nahle  services  of  the  venerable  sire  of  the  ])retty 
rat-cateher's  dauirhter  of  PaddiiiL'ton  Green." ^ 

"  I>ut  yon  stupid  man,  wc  are  not  on  board  ship," 
said  my  amiable  and  aceomplislie<l  spouse. 

"And,"  I  rei>lied,  "that  is  exactly  where  tho 
difficulty  arises;  for  where  a,  man  had  a  water-tank 
on  the  r.  of  of  liis  liouse,  and  the  rats  gnawed 
through  .'I  leaden  i)i[)e  so  that  water  trickled  down 
and  injured  tho  goods  of  another  fellow  on  tho 
ground  floor,  the  court  lield  that  tho  owner  of  the 
establishment,  who  occupied  the  npper  flat,  was  not 
responsible — and  Chief  Baron  Kelly  remarked  that 
it  was  absurd  to  suppose  that  a  duty  lay  on  tho 
landlord  to  exclude  the  possibility  of  tho  entrance 
of  rats  from  without."'^ 

"That  seems  a,  very  different  view  from  that 
taken  by  the  judges  in  ti\e  other  cases,"  remarked 
Mrs.  L. 

"Yes;  but  the  Chief  Baron  said  that  the  case  of 
a  ship  was  wholly  different — that  it  might  be  possi- 
ble to  insure  freedom  from  rats  in  a  ship,  but  that 
it  was  impossible  to  say  that  tiiis  could  bo  done 
with  respect  to  warehouses  generally,*  and  another 

1  Dale  u.  Hall,  IWils.  281. 

2  Kay  V.  AVhoeler,  L.  K.  2  C.  T.  302. 
sCarstaira  v.  Taylor,  Law  R.  G  Ex.  217. 
*  Carstairs  v.  Taylor,  supra. 


IOC 


rmr,,  rats,  axd  burglars. 


f  i 


jiulge  remarked  tliat  a  landlord  could  not  be  con- 
Bidered  neLjjligent  if  lie  omitted  taking  moans  to  get 
rid  of  these  pesls  till  there  was  reason  to  yupposc 
they  were  in  the  building."  ^ 

"Xever  mind  what  others  considered  and  thouirht 
and  said — what  do  you  think?" 

"I  think  that  perhaps  the  rule  would  apply  that 
if  a  man  permits  an  animal  to  remain  in  his  posses- 
sion he  becomes  lialdo  for  the  mischief  it  com- 
mits." 2 

"Do  you  know  what  I  think?"  queried  my  wife. 

"No,  my  dear." 

"  That  we  had  better  go  to  lunch." 

TT  T?  TT  TT  TT  '^r 

As  we  were  cpiietly  sleeping  the  sleep  of  the  wea<» 
ried  just  that  night,  I  was  aroused  by  a  noise  at  our 
window.  In  a  moment  or  two  it  was  opened,  and 
then  a  man  stealthily  entered  the  room.  I  had  not 
time  to  ask  him  what  he  wanted,  for  at  the  first 
sound  of  my  voice  he  was  off  as  quickly  as  if  ho 
had  heard  the  click  of  a  j^istol.  I  made  the  win-, 
dow  secure,  and  again  entered  dream-land.  In  tho 
morning,  as  we  donned  the  attire  which  Adam's 
transgression  has  rendered  necessary,  my  Avife  and 
myself  conversed  on  the  subject  of  the  liability  of 
an  hotel-keeper  for  losses  occurring  to  his  guests 
from  burglary. 

"  In  Vermont,  my  dear,"  I  said,  "  it  has  been  held 
that  if  the  proprietor  could  show  that  the  burglari- 
ous entry  was  under  circumstances  that  absolved 

iRncl.  per  Bramwell,  J. 

2  McKomo  V.  Word,  5  Car.  &  P.  1. 


wm 


riRE,    RATS,    AND    BURfSLARS. 


107 


liim  from  all  blaine,  he  woiiM  not  bo  liabU*.^  But 
that  doctriiU'  is  not  now  f (j1  lowed ." - 

*'  An«l  what  <lo  the   indices  now  sav?  " 

"It  was  decided  in  this  sunset  State  that  althouujh 
the  i)oint  may  he  sofuewhat  unsettled,  yet  still  the 
true  idea  is  to  hold  that  innkei'[)ers,  like  common 
carriers,  arc  insurers  of  the  property  committed 
to  their  charge,  and  arc  houn*!  to  make  restitution 
for  any  injury  or  loss  not  caused  hy  the  act  of  the 
Almi<3dity,  nor  hy  a  common  enemy,  nor  by  the 
neglect  or  default  of  the  owner."^ 

A  fresh  to])ic  of  conversation  lierc  suggesting 
itself  to  the  active  brain  of  Mrs.  L.,  she  launched 
out  upon  it  con  aniore, 

I  found  afterwards  that  I  had  not  been  the  only 
object  of  the  burglar's  attentions,  for  as  I  was  saun- 
teriuGC  alonuj  one  of  the  corridors  of  the  hotel  I  was 
accosted  thus : 

"I  say,  you  walking  digest  of  the  law  of  inns 
and  innkeepers,  what's  the  consequence  if  a  guest 
is  a  little  careless  and  loses  his  valuables?" 

This  question  was  familiarly  i)ut  to  me  (that  is, 
put  in  a  way  that  evinced  no  intention  on  the  part 
of  the  speaker  of  paying  for  the  information  sought) 
by  an  old  friend,  with  whom  I  occasionally  con- 
versed, on  legal  topics,  and  from  whom  carelessness 
and  negligence  were  as  inseparable  as  Apollo  and 


iMcDaniels  v.  Robinson,  20  Vt.  311;  Morse  >;.  Slice,  1  Vent. 
1(K),  2;'.8. 

2Mateer  u.  Brown,  1  C.il.  221;  Norcross  v.  Xorcross,  53  Me. 
1G3;  Pinkerton  v.  Woodward,  33  Cal  557. 

3  ^lateer  v.  Brown,  supra.  See,  also,  Mason  v.  Thompsoo,  9 
Pick.  284. 


I, 

I 


.-,..-3 


108 


nilE,   RATS,   AND    BURGLARS. 


liis  golden  bow,  or  Orplicus  and  IiIm   tuneful  lyn't, 

"The  sumo  old  Story,  to  whom  I  have  often 
alluded  in  my  j)rofe.ssion:d  talks  witli  you,  Kays  l 
that  nei^ligonco  may  be  ordinary,  or  less  than  ordin. 
ary,  or  more  than  ordinary;  and  that  ordinary 
negligence  niay  be  deliiUMl  to  be  want  of  ordinary 
diligence,  and  gross  negligence  to  be  want  of  slight 
diligence.  Although  some  English  judges  liavo 
said  that  they  can  sec  no  differeuce  between  negli- 
gence and  gross  negligence  ;  that  it  is  the  sumo 
thing  with  the  addition  of  a  vituperative  epithet.3 
Of  what  kind  of  negligence  have  you  been  guilty, 
and  what  has  happened  ?" 

*'Idid  not  say  that  I  had  been  doing  anything. 
But  suppose  that  a  fellow  had  some  money  in  his 
portmimteau  and  left  it  in  the  hail  of  the  hotel  with 
the  other  baggage,  and  didn't  say  anything  about 
it  to  the  landlord,  and  it  disappeared." 

"  Well,  sir,  in  such  a  case  I  should  say  that  a 
jury  would  bo  warranted  in  finding  that  the  indi^ 
vidual  referred  to  liad  been  guilty  of  gross  negli- 
gence, and  that  the  hotel-keeper  v/as  exonerated 
through  his  imprudence  in  thus  exposing  his  goods 
to  peril."  3 

"  I  had  some  such  idea  floating  through  my  own 
cranium." 

''  'Tis  a  pity  that  your  brain  is  in  such  a  liquid 
state.  I  remember  a  case  of  a  man  of  the  name  of 
Armistead,  a  commercial  traveler,  who,  while  at  an 

1  Story  on  Bailments,  sec.  17. 

2Rolfo,  IJ.  in  Wilson  v.  Brett,  11  M.  &  W,  110:  Austin  v. 
Manchester  &c.  Railway,  10  C.  B.  474. 
3  Fowler  y.  Dorlon,  24  Barb.  384. 


FIRE,    RATS,    AND    BURGLARS. 


100 


1- 


hotel,  placed  his  box  in  ilu>  corninerciul  room,  as 
was  the  wont  of  thosn  wln>  visiteil  the  house.  The 
liox  had  money  in  it,  and  was  left  there  fur  three 
ni^dits.  Twiee  or  thriee,  in  the  jiresenee  of  several 
on-lookers,  Arniistead  openccl  tlu!  trunk  an<l  count- 
ed his  chaniie.  Thc^  lock  was  so  \)m\  that  any  one 
could  unfiisten  it  without  a  key  by  simply  pushin;^ 
back  the  holt.  The  money  leaked  away  mvsteri- 
ously,  and  Armistead  sued  the  lamUord  to  recover 
it,  but  the  jii<lge  who  tried  the  case  told  the  jury 
that  uross  iieixliLTence  on  tlie  i)art  of  the  Lcuest  would 
relieve  the  host  from  his  common-law  liability;  and 
when  the  matter  came  up  ])efore  the  court  it  was 
lield  that  tiie  jury  had  done  rii^ht  in  iindini^  the 
traveler  had  been  tjcuilty  of  such  t'ross  ncLjliLrencc 
as  to  excuse  his  landlord  from  liability  for  the 
money.  Lord  Campbell  remarked  that  the  judi^e 
would  have  been  astray  had  he  sai<l  that  in  all 
cases  a  box  should  be  taken  to  the  guest's  bedroom, 
and  he  doubted  whether,  in  order  to  absolve  the 
innkeeper,  there  must  be  crassa  ncfjlUjcutla  oa  the 
part  of  the  guest."  ^ 

"That's  the  law,  is  it?" 

"  A  still  more  recent  case  settled  the  question  as 
to  the  amount  of  neijrliijcence  that  would  bind  the 
owner  of  the  goods.  In  deciding  it,  Earle,  J.,  said 
that  ho  thou!]jht  that  the  rule  of  law  resultimx  from 
all  the  authorities  was,  that  in  a  case  like  the  one 
he  was  considering  the  goods  always  remained 
under  the  charge  of  the  innkeeper  and  the  protection 
of  the  inn,  so  as  to  make  the  landlord  liable  as  for 


1  Armistead  v.  White,  29  Law  J.  Q.  B.  521. 
lo. 


!] 

'I 


m 


110 


FIRE,  RATS,  AND  BURGLARS. 


breach  of  duty,  unless  the  negligence  of  the  guest 
occasions  the  loss,  in  such  a  way  as  that  it  would 
not  have  happened  if  the  guest  had  used  the  ordi- 
nary care  that  a  prudent  man  might  reasonably 
have  been  expected  to  take  under  the  circumstan- 
ces ;  1  and  the  same  rule  seems  to  hold  good  on  this 
side  of  tlie  Atlantic."  ^ 

*'If  a  friend  bags  your  baggage,"  inquired  the 
searcher  after  clieap  knowledge,  "  at  an  hotel,  and 
marches  off  with  it,  could  you  compel  the  proprie- 
tor of  the  establisl.nient  to  make  good  your  loss?" 

"  It  was  decided  not,  in  Illinois,  where  one  had 
allowed  his  ciiuni  to  exercise  acts  of  ownership  over 
Ijis  trunk; 3  and  long  ago  it  was  held,  in  the  old 
land,  that  if  a  landlord  tells  a  guest,  on  his  arrival, 
that  lie  has  no  room,  the  house  being  full,  and  his 
words  are  veritable  truth,  and  yet  the  guest  insists 
upon  being  admitted,  saying  that  he  will  shift  for 
himself,  or  if  he  go  and  share  the  ai^artment  of 
another,  without  the  consent  of  the  proprietor  or 
his  servants,  the  host  is  not  responsible  for  his 
traps,  unless  the  sufferer  can  show  that  the  goods 
were  actually  stolen  or  lost  through  the  negligence 
of  the  innkeeper  or  his  servants.^  But  an  inn- 
keeper can't  shirk  his  liability  because  his  house  is 
full  of  parcels,  if  the  owner  is  stojiping  at  the 
house."  5 


iCashill  V.  AVright,  G  El.  &  B.  898. 

"  Chamberlain  v.  Mastersou,  2G  Ala.  371 ;  Iladley  v.  Upsliaw, 
27  Tex.  517;  Profiles  v.  Hall,  11  La.  An.  324. 
3Kelsey  v.  Berry,  42  111.  409;  Cayle's  Case,  8  Coke,  32. 
4  1  Andcss.  29. 
c  Bennett  v.  Mellor,  5  T.  U.  273. 


nUB,   RATS,   AND   BUIUILABS. 


Ill 


"To  tell  you,  then,  what  really  did  happen  to 
me :   I  jxot  in  hero  late  last  nii^ht,  and  after  enterincj 

CD  O  '  O 

my  name  at  the  oflice,  i)ulled  out  my  purse  and 
paid  the  cabby;  I  then  went  to  my  room,  and  being 
very  tired,  tumbled  out  of  my  clothes  as  rajtidly  as 
nature  and  art  would  permit  me,  put  them  on  a 
chair  near  the  bed,  and  Avas  soon  among  tlie  flowery 
meads  of  dream-land.  This  morning',  lo  and  behold ! 
the  purse  which  I  had  left  in  my  pocket  was  gone, 
Bome  villain  having,  while  I  slept,  entered  the  room 
by  the  door,  which  I  had  omitted  to  fasten.  Now, 
then,  what  are  my  rights  and  remedies  in  the 
premises?"  asked  my  friend. 

"In  the  days  when  the  Virgin  Queen,  Elizabeth, 
ruled  the  benighted  land  of  our  ancestors,  Jind 
trifled  with  the  affections  of  subject,  prince,  king, 
czar,  and  Caesar,  the  v>^hole  Court  of  Queen's  Bench 
decided  that  an  innkeeper  was  bound  by  law  to 
keep  the  goods  and  chattels  of  Ids  guests,  without 
any  stealing  or  purloining,  and  that  it  was  no  ex- 
cuse for  him  to  say  that  he  delivered  to  the  guest 
the  key  of  his  bed-room,  and  that  he  (the  guest)  had 
left  the  door  open,  (that  is,  I  presume,  unlocked)  ;l 
for  that  he,  the  landlord,  is  responsible  fur  their 
safety,  even  in  the  bed-room,  and  that  even  though 
the  poor  publican  never  knew  that  his  visitor  had 
any  proi)erty  with  him,  and  was  entirely  ignorant  of 
the  depredation.  Unless,  indeed,  the  thief  was  the 
guest's  servant  or  friend,  or  the  projirietor  had  rc« 
quired  the  guest  to  place  his  goods  in  a  particular 
chamber,  under  lock  and  key,  saying  that  then  ho 

1  Erie,  J.,  in  Casliill  r.  Wriqfht,  G  El.  &  13.  81)5. 


m 


! 


fir 


?i 


i'  '•; 


t  I 


ill  I II 
\\  111 


i  :      ill 


112 


FIRE,   RATS,    AND   BUEGLAI13. 


Would  warrant  their  safety,  otherwise  not,  and  tho 
man  had  foolishly  neglected  the  advice."^ 

"Ah,  well!  then  I  am  all  riglit." 

"Kindly  refrain  from  forming  a  deQnito  opinion 
until  you  arc  in  full  possession  of  the  who/e  law  on 
the  subject.  I  know  that  it  has  been  lield  again 
and  again,  in  England,  that  a  guest  is  not  bound  to 
either  fasten  or  lock  his  dejor.^  In  a  very  late  case 
Lord  Ciiancellor  Cairns  remarked  tliat  he  would  bo 
Borry  to  s.iy  any  single  word  implying  that  there  is 
any  rule  of  law  as  to  this;*^  and  our  own  authori- 
ties seem  to  be  in  unison  with  the  Encijlish  decis- 
i(ms.'^  But  i)erhaps  you  may  have  heard  the  re- 
mark that  circumstances  alter  cases." 

"I  must  confess  the  maxim  has  a  v\n<x  not  alto- 
gether  novel  to  my  ears." 

"I  may  say  that  it  is  particularly  true  in  legal 
matters;  and  sometimes  it  is  incumbent  on  a  guest 
to  fasten  his  door.^  For  example,  a  commercial 
traveler  obtained  a  private  room  wherein  to  exhibit 
his  goods  to  his  customers.  Clements,  the  landlord, 
told  him  to  lock  the  door.  This  the  man  neglected 
to  do,  although  while  showing  his  samples  a  stranger 
had  twice  popped  his  phiz  into  the  room.  The  court 
considered  that  the  traveler  by  his  own  act  had  aU 
solved  Clements  from  his  liability,  and  that  he  must 
bear  his  loss  as  philosophically  as  possible."  <^ 

1  Caylo'rt  Case,  8  Coke,  32. 

-Mitchell  V.  Wooa.s,  IG  L.  T.  Kep.  X.  S.  GTC;  Filipdurko  v 
Merry  wcuthcr,  i:  Tost.  &  F.  2S5. 
sSpico  V.  Bacon,  10  Alb.  L.  J.  38G. 
'•Classen  v.  Leopold,  2  Sweeney,  (N".  Y.)  705 
c  r>aaaenberg  i\  Denuer,  1  Hilt.  (X.  Y.)  81. 
oUurgesd  v.  Clements,  4  Moore  &  S.  oOG. 


FIRE,    RATS,    AXD    BURGLAKS. 


113 


"Did  tliG  occupants  of  the  bench  state  the  why 


5> 


and  tlie  wherefore  ? 

"Yes;  and  it  was  partly  on  the  ground  that  the 
Iiotcl-keeper  was  not  bound  to  extend  the  same  pro- 
tection to  goods  pLaced  in  a  room  for  tlie  purposes 
of  trade  as  to  those  in  an  ordinary  chamber.  (You 
know  tlie  liability  is  only  as  to  baggage;  it  extends 
not  to  merchandise.)!  And  further,  that  eircumstan- 
ccs  of  suspicion  had  arisen  which  sIkuM  have  put  the 
guest  on  his  guard;  that  after  tlie  vision  of  the 
strange  head  it  became  his  duty,  in  whatever  room 
he  might  be,  to  use  at  least  ordinary  diligence,  and 
particularly  so  as  he  was  occupying  the  apartment 
for  a  special  purpose.  For  though,  in  general,  a 
traveler  who  resorts  to  an  inn  may  rest  upon  the 
2)rotection  which  the  law  casts  around  him,  yet,  if 
circumstances  of  suspicion  arise,  he  must  exercise 
at  least  ordinary  care."  2 

"But,"  said  my  companion,  "I  had  no  head  to 
warn  me — not  even  Banquo-likc  did  any  'horrible 
shadow,  unreal  mockery'  appear,  to  pkice  me  on 
niy  guard." 

"A  case  occurred  at  Bristol,  in  England,  which 
may,  perchance,  put  the  matter  to  you  in  a  clear 
liglit.  A  man  of  foreign  extraction,  Oppenheim 
by  name,  went  to  the  White  Lion  Hotel.  While 
in  a  public  room  he  took  from  his  i)ocket  a  canvas 
bag,  containing  twenty-two  g(jld  sovereigns,  some 
silver,  and  a  £')  note,  and  extracted  therefrom  a 
tanner  —  " 


1^ 


n 


III 


1 , 


iPettigrow  v.  Barnum,  11  Md.  431;  Giles  v.  Fauntleroy,  13 
Md.  12(3. 
2  Burgess  v.  Clcmcuts,  supra. 


I     r    e< 


3 
i 

ii1 


J 


lU 


FIBE,  BATS,   AND  BUEOLAB& 


*=A  what?" 

"  A  six-penny  bit — to  jiay  for  some  stamps. 
Shortly  afterwards  lie  retired  for  the  night  to  a 
room  in  an  upper  story;  the  door  had  both  lock 
and  bolt ;  the  window  looked  on  to  a  balcony.  The 
chambermaid  told  him  that  the  window  was  open, 
but  said  nothing  about  the  door.  He  closed  the 
latter,  but  did  not  lock  it  or  bolt  it ;  left  the  window 
open,  and  placed  his  clothes,  with  the  money  in  a 
pocket,  on  a  chair  at  his  bedside.  During  the  night 
some  one  entered  by  the  door  and  removed  the  bag 
without  first  removing  the  money  from  it.  Of 
course  Oppenheim  sued  the  hotel  company,  and 
had  the  pleasure  of  hearing  the  judge  tell  the  jury 
that  they  should  consider  whether  the  loss  would 
or  would  not  have  happened  if  O.  had  used  the 
ordinary  care  wdiich  a  prudent  man  might  reason- 
ably be  expected  to  have  used  under  the  circum- 
Btances." 

"And  the  jury  said  what?" 

"  Why,  they  said  the  hotel  company  were  not 
liable;  and  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  at  West- 
minister, said  that  the  judge  had  put  the  law  cor- 
rectly, and  that  the  jury  had  done  tlieir  duty." 

"  But  then  the  guest  had  been  guilty  of  other 
acts  of  nei]jli<j:ence  besides  leavinc:  his  door  un- 
locked  ;  he  showed  his  j^urse —  " 

"  ^i{  tu  Bnite  !  "  I  remarked. 

"  I  forgot,"  was  the  confession. 

"  The  whole  facts  of  the  case  must  be  looked  at ; 
and  the  judges  thought  there  was  evidence  of  neg- 
ligence on  Oppenheim's  part  which  contributed  to 


riRE,   BATS,   AND  BUROLAKS. 


115 


the  loss.  One  of  my  Lords  said  that  he  agreed  in 
the  oiiinion  that  there  is  no  obligation  on  a  guest  at 
an  inn  to  lock  his  bedroom  door;  but  the  fact  of 
the  guest  having  the  means  of  securing  himself  and 
choosing  not  to  use  them  is  one  which,  with  the 
other  circumstances  of  the  case,  should  be  left  to 
the  jury.  The  weight  of  it  must,  of  course,  depend 
upon  the  state  of  society  at  the  time  and  place ; 
what  would  be  prudent  at  a  sm.'ili  hotel  in  a  small 
town  might  be  the  extreme  of  imprudence  at  a 
large  hotel  in  a  city  like  Bristol,  where  probably 
three  hundred  bedrooms  were  occupied  by  people 
of  all  sorts.-^  And  one  of  the  other  judges  re- 
marked that  Lord  Coke,  in  the  case  to  which  I  first 
referred,^  only  meant  that  an  hotel-keeper  could 
not  get  rid  of  his  liability  by  merely  handing  his 
guest  a  key,  and  that  he  by  no  means  laid  it  down 
that  a  guest  might  not  be  guilty  of  negligence  in 
abstaining  from  using  it."  ^ 

"Well,  what  ami  to  do?" 

"Do!  Why  let  the  past  bury  the  past,  and  in 
future  remember  three  golden  rules  whenever  you 
are  at  an  hotel.  First,  under  any  circumstances 
lock  your  bedroom  door  when  you  retire  for  the 
night.  Secondly,  do  not  display  your  cash  in  pub- 
lic places;  and.  Thirdly,  consider  whether  there  are 
not  special  circumstances  calling  for  special  caution 
on  your  part,  and  if  there  are,  act  accordingly. 
But  you  have  not  told  me  yet  how  much  you  lost.". 

1  Per  ^lontague  Smith,  J. ;  Oppenlieim  v.  White  Lion  Hotel 
Co.  L.  K.  0  C.  P.  515. 

2  Cayle's  Case. 

2  Oppenheim  v.  "White  Lion  Hotel  Co.  ante. 


\%  (  • 

w^ 

.  ;•  '  ,• 

i 

{ 

*i 

v.] 

4 

m 


tn^ 


ml 


j  ! 


i    ; 


■ 


n 


i  ' 


r 


116 


FIEE,    RATS,   AND  BURGLAIiS. 


"Only  $2;  but  it  is  the  i)rinciple  involved  that  I 
look  at." 

"  You  rascal !  if  I  had  known  that  it  was  such  a 
paltry  sum,  I  would  not  have  taken  the  trouble  to 
tell  you  all  that  I  have." 


ClIArXER    VII. 


nORSES   AND    STABLES. 


Time  passed,  and  hack  to  the  East  we  liad  come. 
On  a  certain  day  my  wife  and  myself,  together  witli 
a  coiii)le  of  friends,  yclept  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Vc  Gex, 
engaged  a  carriage  and  pair  to  take  us  some  twenty 
or  thirty  miles  into  the  (H)untry  to  see  some  wonder- 
ful sights — what  they  were  is  quite  immaterial  at 
tliis  late  date.  A  jdeasant  drive  and  charming  day 
wo  had.  The  night  we  were  to  spend  at  a  little 
village  inn. 

The  mistress  of  the  small  establishment  received 
us  right  warmly,  so  that  a  perfect  glow  of  pleasure 
2)ervaded  one's  inner  man. 

"Ah,"  said  Mrs.  De  Gex,  who  was  inclined 
towards  sentimentalism,  "  how  true  arc  the  words 
of  the  poet ! 


i 


If! 


i    i 


■I  i 

1^ 


'"SVhoe'er  has  traveled  life's  dull  round, 
"NVhero'er  his  stages  may  liavo  been, 
May  sigh  to  think  that  ho  has  found 
His  warmest  welcome  at  an  inn.'  " 

The  innkeeper  told  our  driver  to  leave  the  car* 
riage  outside  on  the  road.  One  of  the  party  asked 
if  that  would  be  safe. 

"If  it  is  not,"  I  replied,  "Boniface  is  responsible, 
for  I  remember  that,  in  England,  a  man  drove  up 
to  an  inn  on  a  fair  day  and  asked  the  landlord 
if  ho  had  room  for  the  horse,  and  a  servant  of  the 

CU7  3 


\ 


t'» 


tls 


I         I' 


118 


HORSES  AXD   STABLES. 


li 


"'■:t 


cstiiblislimcnt  put  it  into  the  stable,  wliilc  tlio  trav- 
eler took  his  coat  and  whip  into  the  house,  where 
he  got  some  refreshment.  The  hostler  jjlaced  the 
gig  in  the  open  street,  (outside  the  inn-yard)  where 
he  was  accustomed  to  leave  the  carriai^es  of  tjuests. 
Tlie  gig  having  been  stolen,  the  i)ubHcan  was  held 
liable."! 

"That  seems  rather  hard,  when,  perhaps,  the 
yard  was  full,"  some  one  remarked. 

"  The  landlord  was  not  bound  to  receive  the  gig 
if  he  had  not  sufficient  accommodation  for  it.  The 
guest  (lid  not  know  whether  there  was  room  or  not ; 
and  as  the  hostler  took  the  horse,  he  had  a  right  to 
assume  that  there  was.  If  the  proprietor  had 
wished  to  protect  himself  he  should  have  told  the 
traveler  that  he  had  no  room  in  the  yard,  and  that 
he  would  have  to  put  the  gig  in  the  street,  where, 
however,  he  would  not  be  liable  for  it.  lie  did  not 
do  so,  and  had  to  bear  the  penalty.'^  And  it  has 
been  hehl  in  this  country  that  an  innkeeper  would 
be  responsible  in  the  same  way  where  a  guest's 
servant  liad  placed  his  master's  property  in  an 
open,  uninclosed  space,  by  the  direction  of  tho 
liostler,  and  upon  being  assured  that  it  would  be 
quite  safe  there."  3 

"Mr.  Justice  Story  once  said  tliat  in  the  country 
towns  of  America  it  is  very  common  to  leave 
chaises  and  carriages  at  inns  under  open  sheds  all 
night,  and  also  to  leave  stable  doors  oj)en  and 
unlocked ;  and  that  if,  under  those  circumstances, 

1  Jones  V.  Tylor,  1  Ad.  &  E.  522. 
2Xauwton,  J.,  in  Jones  I'.  Tyier. 
8  Piper  V  Manny,  21  Wend.  283. 


HORSES  AND   STABLES. 


119 


liad 

1  tho 

I  that 

lere, 

not 

has 

uld 

cst's 

an 

the 

be 

iitry 
iave 
all 
and 
ces. 


a  horse  or  a  chaise  should  bo  stolon,  it  would  de- 
serve consideration  how  far  the  innkeeper  would 
be  liable,"  ^  said  Mr.  De  Gex,  my  companion,  who 
had  looked  inside  n  law-book  or  two. 

*'  I  fancy  it  has  been  considered,"  I  replied,  '■  and 
the  innkeeper  has  met  with  little  consideration, 
and  is  held  bound  to  i)rotect  the  proi)erty  of  those 
whom  he  receives  as  his  iruests.  In  one  instance, 
the  driver  i)ut  his  loaded  sleigh  in  the  waujon-house 
of  the  inn,  where  such  things  were  usually  placed; 
and  the  doors  of  the  shed  having  been  broken  open 
and  property  stolen,  the  landlord  was  held  bound 
to  make  good  the  loss,  without  loss  of  time.2  But 
Dr.  Theo])hilus  Parsons,  who  knows  something  of 
these  matters,  says  that  if  a  horse  or  carriage  is  put 
in  an  open  shed  with  the  owner's  consent  or  by  liis 
direction,  the  innkeeper  will  not  be  liable  for  their 
loss,  and  that  where  this  is  usually  done  and  the 
owner  of  the  horse  knows  the  custom  and  gives  no 
jiarticular  instructions,  it  may  be  presumed  that 
he  consented  and  took  the  risk  upon  himself."  ^ 

"Suppose  we  inspect  the  stable  and  see  what 
accommodation  there  is  for  our  equine  friends." 
We  entered.  "  Rather  risky  place  to  put  two 
city  horses  in,"  De  Gex  continued.  "  Look  at  the 
flooring.  A  nag  of  any  s})irit,  not  accustomed  to 
the  place,  might  kick  through  it  and  break  its  leg." 

"Well,"'  I  said,  "tiie  innkeeper  is  bound  to  pro* 
vide  safe  stabling  for  the  horses  of  his  guest,  and 
if  any  evil  betide  the  animals  from  being  impro]>. 


i  'h 


1  Story  on  Bailments,  sec.  478. 
-Chute  r.  ^Viggins,  14  Jolmson,  175. 
8  Parsons  on  Contracts,  vol.  2,  p.  1G9. 


1 1 


1. 


I 


i 


i  j 


!  I 


120 


HORSES  AND   STAIILES. 


erly  tied,  or  the  stalls  bcin;^  in  bad  repair,  full 
compensation  may  bo  recovered.^  lie  is  responsi- 
ble from  the  moment  lie  receives  the  quadrupeds 
until  they  leave;  even  after  the  owner  has  paiil  his 
bill  and  his  man  is  harnessing  them  to  go;-  and, 
as  jx  rule,  the  statutory  laws  limiting  the  liability  of 
hotel-keepers  do  not  -'ipply  to  horses  or  carriages." 

"  Your  view  is  the  one  a  lawyer  (a  man  without 
a  Iieart)  might  take  of  it,  but  a  merciful  man  is 
merciful  to  his  beast  and  does  not  like  to  run  the 
chance  of  its  being  killed." 

"  The  tavern-keeper's  liability  extends  even  to 
the  death  of  the  animals  in  his  care,'*^  I  remarked. 

"  Still,  one  should  himself  exercise  reasonable 
care  and  caution,"  returned  De  Gex.  "I  remember 
a  gentleman,  who  ke[;t  his  horse  at  an  inn,  rode 
out  one  cveninij  and  on  returniuGT  himself  took  it 
into  the  stable  and  tied  it  up  in  the  stall  in  which 
it  had  usually  been  kept.  The  next  morning  the 
horse  was  found  dead  in  the  same  stall,  its  liead 
wedged  fast  in  the  trough,  which  was  made  of  a 
hollow  beech  log  having  a  bulge  in  the  middle, 
thus  rendering  that  part  wider  than  the  top.  The 
poor  beast  had  evidently  killed  itself  in  trying  to 
extricate  its  head.  The  owner  brought  an  action 
against  the  publican,  but  had  to  bear  the  loss,  not 
only  of  his  horse  but  also  of  the  suit."* 

"  Yet  I  know  that  where  a  horse  had  been  choked. 

1  Dickenson  v.  Hodger.s,  4  Humph.  (Tenn.)  179. 

2  Seymour  v.  Cook,  53  Barb.  451. 

SMetcalf  v.  Hess,  14  111.  12i)  ;  Uill  v.  Owen,  5  Blackf.  (Ind.) 
323. 
4Thickstern  v.  Howard,  8  Blackf.  535. 


nORSE3   AND  STABLE3. 


121 


5» 


lucl\ 

tho 

icad 

)f  a 


Tho 

igto 

jtion 

not 


)kcd 


Ind.) 


to  (lentil  l)y  its  halter,  and  it  ^^'a9  proved  that  it 
was  tied  under  tho  siiperintendeiico  and  direction 
of  tho  owner  himself,  and  in  reply  the  owner 
proved  that  tho  stall  in  which  it  had  been  was  in 
very  bad  condition,  it  was  held  that  tho  innkeep- 
er could  not  give  further  evideiiee.l  And  when 
another  innkeeper  agreed  with  tho  owner  of  a  liorse 
'to  entertain  the  man  in  charge  <nio  day  ni  every 
week,  or  oftener  if  ho  should  chance  to  stop  at  tho 
iim  with  the  horse,  furnish  tlie  latter  witii  proven- 
der and  allow  it  to  bo  kept  in  a  particular  stall: 
no  one   but  tho  man  in   charcje  took  care  of  tho 

CD 

liorse;  yet  on  its  being  injured  in  its  stall,  the  inn- 
keeper was  held  answerable."  '^ 

"  And  look,  besides,  there  are  no  proper  parti- 
tions between  tho  stalls,"  said  my  friend,  "  an(l 
some  other  najx  miuflit  kick  one  of  ours:  and  vou 
know  that  it  was  decided  in  tho  old  country  that 
vuider  such  circumstances  tho  publican  would  not 
be  liable  for  tho  injuries  so  inflicted,  unless  it  could 
bo  proved  that  ho  did  not  take  duo  an«l  proper  care 
in  excluding  vicious  and  kicking  horses."  ^ 

"Ilah!"  I  exclaimed.  "  But  that  case  has  since 
been  doubted,  and  it  can  scarcely  be  accepted  as 
good  law."^     Well,  what  shall  wo  do?" 

"  Let's  tell  them  to  turn  tho  nags  into  tho  field," 
said  Do  Gex. 

If  you  do,  and  they  arc  lost,  stolen  or  injured. 


u 


1  Jordan  v.  Boono,  5  Rich.  528. 

2  Washburn  u.  Jones,  14  Barb.  103. 
8  Dawson  v.  Chamney,  52  B.  33. 

*  Wharton  on  Innkeepers,  p.  Ill;  Matier  v.  Brown,  1  Cal. 


i 
1 

221. 


11. 


122 


HORSES  AND  STABLES. 


WO  cannot  look  to  our  host  for  recompense,  unless 
Muster  llonifaco  liimself  l)o  guilty  of  neglii^ence,  as 
by  putlinL?  them  in  .1  field  where  j)its  or  ditches 
abound  or  fences  and  gates  are  broken  or  open. 
If,  however,  ho  should  ])ut  them  into  the  ])asturo 
of  his  own  accord,  lio  would  be  answerable;!  for 
then  the  field  would  bo  considered  as  i)art  of  the 
inn  iireniises.  Although  Storv  thinks  that  the  hit- 
ter  rule  should  be  qualified,  as  it  is  such  a  common 
custom  in  America  in  the  summer  time  to  put 
horses  in  a  pasture,  ho  says  tho  implied  consent  of 
the  guest  may  fairly  be  presumed,  if  ho  knows  tho 
l^ractice. '2 

"Well,  let  us  send  them  over  to  the  other  house, 
where  the  stabling  appears  better,  while  wc  our- 
selves lodge  here,"  again  suggested  Mr.  Do  G. 

"  That  might  do,"  I  made  answer;  "  for  an  inn- 
keeper is  bound  to  receive  a  horse,  even  though 
tho  owner  chooses  to  go  elsewhere.^  And  it  is  clear- 
ly settled  that  in  the  eyes  of  the  law  a  man  becomes 
a  guest  at  a  place  of  public  entertainment  by  hav- 
ing his  horse  there,  though  he  himself  neither 
lodges  nor  takes  refreshments  there."* 

"  Cut  I  thought  that  an  iniikeeper  was  not  bound 
to  take  tho  goods  of  a  man  who  merely  wishes  to 
use  the  house  as  a  place  of  deposit;  ^  nor  liable  for 
things  so  left  there,  except  as  an  ordinary  bailee."  ^ 

1  Cayle's  Case,  8  Ecp.  32;  Hawley  v.  Smith,  25  Wend.  G42. 

2  Story  on  Bailments,  sec.  478. 

8  Saunders  r.  Pluminer,  Orl.  Bridg.  227. 
*  :Mason  v.  Thompson,  9  Pickering,  280. 
s  Bennet  v.  Mellor,  5  T.  R.  273. 

6  Wintermute  v.  Clarke,  6  Sandf.  242;  Smith  v.  Dearlove,  6 
C.  B.  132. 


HORSES  AND   STABLES. 


123 


id 
Ito 

lor 

1'6 


"  Oh,  tli.'it  rule!  only  applies  to  dciul  things  out 
of  wliic^ii  tho  iu;m  can  niakc;  no  profit ;  but  with 
animals  tho  innkoc[)L'r  is  chargeable,  because  lie 
makes  sotnething  out  of  keejiing  them.  An<l,  as  I 
said,  it  has  been  frequently  held  that  lie  is  liable 
for  the  loss  of  ji  hors(\  aIthou'c!i  its  owner  jiuts  up 
at  adifferont  ])lacc.     Hut  there  is  some  doubt."  ^ 

"Will  he  also  bo  liable  for  the  carriage?"  asked 
my  eomj)anion. 

"Yes,  and  for  the;  harness  as  well ;  for  the  com- 
pensation paid  for  the  horses  will  extend  the  host's 
responsibility  to  such  articles.  And  the  owner  will 
be  able  to  sue  for  damages  if  anything  ha[)pcns  to 
our  nags,  although  they  have  been  hired  by  us.^  If 
a  servant  brings  his  master's  horse  to  an  inn,  and 
while  there  it  is  stolen,  of  course  the  master  can  sue 
the  innkeeper; 3  and  for  all  such  legal  purposes  the 
hirer  of  goods  will  be  deemed  the  owner's  servant." 

"  Supi)oso  a  horse-thief  stops  at  an  inn  and  there 
loses  his  i)ri/e,  can  the  owner  then  sue  the  land- 
lord ?  " 

" No;  he  must,  under  those  trying  circumstances, 
look  simply  to  the  person  who  first  deprived  him 
of  his  faithful  nag,"^  I  replied. 

"The  other  innkeeper  may  charge  pretty  well 
for  the  horses,  if  we  stay  here  ourselves,"  suggested 
De  Gex. 


II 


til 


m 


4 


u 


6 


1  Peel  V.  McGraw,  25  Wendell,  053 :  York  r.  Grindstone,  1 
Salk.  388;  Start  o.  Droraj^oia,  a  Bulst.  289.  But  see  Griunell 
V.  Cook,  3  Hills,  N.  Y.  (JSG;  Ini^allsbee  r.  Wood.  :'>:)  X.  Y.  577; 
3f>  Barb.  N.  Y.  425;  Nowers  v.  Fethers,  01  N.  Y.  34;  Ilealey  v. 
Gray,  08  Me.  480. 

2  Mason  v.  Thompson,  supra. 

8  Bacon's  Abr.  Inns  and  Innkeepers,  C. 
^  Bacon,  supra. 


k 


f  ?f ' 


i 

li 


IMi 


i       i: 


!l  I 


!     !l 


124 


HORSES  AXD   STABLES. 


"  In  tlic  good  old  days  of  yoro  lie  could  not  have 
done  that,  lor  innkeepers  were  bound  to  ask  only  a 
reasonable  i)rice,  to  be  calculated  according  to  the 
rates  of  the  adjoining  nuirket,  witiiout  getting  any- 
thing foi'  litter  ;l  and  if  they  made  a  gross  over- 
charge, the  guests  had  only  to  tender  a  reasonable 
sum,  and  have  them  indicted  and  fined  for  extortion.2 
But  I  fear  me  those  halcyon  days  liave  i)assed. 
Do  you  know  that  if  a  man  is  Ijeaten  at  an  inn  the 
proprietor  is  not  answerable,  althougli  if  the  man's 
horse  should  be  so  treated,  even  if  it  were  not 
known  who  did  it,  the  publican  will  bo  liable?"^ 

"  That  is  queer  law.     Why  is  it? " 

"Because  in  ages  long  since  gone  by  an  innkeep- 
er's liability  was  confined  to  one's  bo)ia  ct  catalla, 
and  injury  to  a  man  is  not  damage  to  his  bona  ct 
catalluP 

"  Well,  I  am  sure  I  don't  see  what  would  dam- 
age his  '  bones  and  cartilage,'  if  a  good  beating  did 
not.     Let  us  join  the  ladies." 

*'  I  think  we  had  better,  after  that  atrocious  at- 
tempt at  a  ])un,"  I  rei)lied.  "  Well  said  the  Auto- 
crat of  the  Breakfast  Table,  'a  pun  is  prima  facie 
an  insult  to  the  person  you  are  talking  with.  It 
implies  utter  indifference  to,  or  sublime  contempt 
for,  his  remarks,  no  matter  liow  serious.' " 

We  found  our  better  halves  had  gone  out  for  a 
walk.  Knowing  that  their  feminine  curiosity  w<mld 
soon  bring  them  to  a  standstill  we  started  in  pur- 
suit, and  speedily  came  up  with  thcni  as  they  stood 


li! 


1 21  Jac  I,  cliap.  21,  sec.  2. 

2 1  Hawk.  225. 

8  Cayle's  Case,  8  Hep.  32;  Stammin  v.  Davis,  1  Salk.  404. 


HORSES  AXD   STABLES. 


125 


gazing  at  some  rose  bushes  in  a,  pretty  flower  gar- 
den. 

"  Did  you  iver  sec  such  bea-u-ti-f ul  roses  ? " 
screamed  Mrs.  Do  Gex,  wlioso  voice,  when  pitched 
in  a  high  key,  was  as  melodious  as  a  jjcacock's. 

"And  so  many!  "  added  Mrs.  Lawyer. 

"I  am  somewliat  a  l^eliever  in  the  doctrine  of 
metempsychosis,"  said  Mr.  De  Gex. 

"  Wh;it  has  such  a  horrid  tiling  to  do  with 
roses?"  asked  his  wife. 

*'  Merely  that,  if  it  be  true,  I  may  liave  seen  finer 
and  more  numerous  flowers  long,  long  ago." 

"Explain,"  I  exclaimed. 

"  Well,  when  in  another  form  I  mnv,  at  the  be- 
ginning  of  the  Cliristi.ui  era,  have  been  present  at 
the  regatta  near  lovely  Baia)  and  seen  the  whole 
surface  of  the  Lucrinc  Sea  strewn  with  these  flow- 
ers, according  to  custom;  or  I  may  have  been 
present  at  some  of  old  N"ero\s  banquetings,  wiien 
ho  caused  showers  of  rose-leaves  to  be  rained  down 
upon  the  assembled  guests;  or,  in  fact,  I  may  have 
been  at  Ileliogabalus'  dinner  i)arty,  when  su(;h 
heaps  of  these  same  flowers  were  flung  over  the 
revelers  that  several  were  smotliered  to  death. 
That  frail  beauty,  Cleopatra,  was  wont  to  s[)end 
immense  sums  on  roses,  and  at  one  entertaimnent, 
that  she  gave  in  honor  of  her  friend  Anthony,  she 
had  the  whole  floor  covered  more  than  a  yard 
deep." 

"  How  deliii'litful !  "  chorused  the  ladies. 

"  The  Sybarites  used  to  sleep  upon  beds  stuffed 
with  rose-leaves.     That  old  tyrant  Dionysius,  at 


•V- 


i 


12G 


HOBSES  AND  STABLES. 


his  revels,  constantly  reclined  on  a  coucli  made  of 
tlie  blossoms.  Verros,  witli  wliom  Cicero  had  the 
tussle,  was  accustomed  to  travel  through  hir  ov- 
ince  reclining  gracefully  on  a  mattrass  full  e  icm; 
and  not  content  with  this,  he  had  a  wreath  of  roses 
round  his  head  and  another  around  his  neck,  with 
leaves  intertwined.  And  Antiochus,  when  ho 
wanted  to  be  uncommonly  luxurious,  would  sleep 
in  a  tent  of  gold  and  silver  upon  a  bed  of  these 
flowers." 
•    "  Did  they  indulge  in  attar  ?  " 

"  I  cannot  say,  but  at  his  parties,  Nero — that 
champitm  fiddler  of  Home — would  liave  his  foun- 
tains flinging  up  rose-water;  and  while  the  jets 
were  pouring  out  tlie  fragrant  liquid,  white  rose- 
leaves  were  on  the  ground,  in  the  cushions  on 
which  the  guests  lay,  hanging  in  garlands  on  their 
noble  brows,  and  in  wreaths  around  their  necks. 
The  couleur  de  rose  pervaded  the  dinner  itself,  and 
a  rose  pudding  challenged  the  appetites  of  the 
guests,  while,  to  assist  digestion,  they  indulged  in 
rose  wine.  nelio2:abalus  was  so  fond  of  this  wine 
that  he  used  to  bathe  in  it." 
.    "  What  a  waste !  "  said  my  wife. 

"  Whose  ?     That  -irPs  ?  "  I  asked. 

"You  horrid  man  !  "  returned  my  wife.  "  But  I 
know  you  pretend  to  dislike  roses." 

"  Yes,"  I  said,  "  if  metempsychosis  is  correct,  I 
must  liave  been  killed  two  or  three  times  durini* 
the  Wars  of  the  Roses.  I  believe,  with  the  ancient 
Aztecs,  that  sin  and  sorrow  came  into  the  world 
through  the    first   woman    plucking   a   forbidden 


rose. 


5> 


HORSES  AND  STABLES. 


127 


1 

i 


10 

in 


'5^ 


"He  is,  perhaps,  not  quite  so  bad  as  the  lady 
who  liad  siicli  a  strong  antipathy  to  this  queen  of 
flowers  tiiat  she  actually  fainted  when  her  lover 
approached  lier  wearing  an  artificial  one  in  his  but- 
ton-hole ;  nor  as  good  Queen  Bess's  lady-in-waiting, 
who  disliked  the  flower  so  much  that  her  cheek 
actually  blistered  when  a  white  one  was  pLiced  uj)- 
on  it  as  she  slejjt.  lie  is  most  like  Tostig  of  old," 
continued  my  wife. 

"  IIo  cannot  sracU  a  rose  but  pricks  his  noso 
Against  the  thorn  and  rails  against  the  rose." 

Our  position  changed  and  so  did  the  subject. 
#  *  #  «  # 

The  next  day  when  we  went  over  for  our  horses 
we  found  a  most  interestiuGC  discussion  ixoinur  on 
between  the  landlord  and  a  man  of  a  class  some- 
what too  common  in  these  hard  times,  an  impecu- 
nious lawyer,  concerning  the  right  of  the  former 
to  detain  the  horse  of  the  latter  for  the  hotel  bill 
of  the  owner. 

"You  can't  do  it,"  said  the  poverty-stricken  dis- 
ciple of  Coke.  "No  innkeeper  can  detain  the  other 
goods  and  chattels  of  a  guest  for  payment  of  the 
expenses  of  a  horse,  nor  a  horse  for  the  expenses  of 
the  guest.  You  can  only  keep  my  horse  for  the 
price  of  its  own  meat,  and  that  has  been  paid  for.l 
If  a  man  broug:ht  several  horses  to  vour  old  inn, 
each  one  could  be  detained  only  for  its  own  keep, 
and  not  for  that  of  tlie  others  ;   and  if  you  let  the 

lllosse  V.  Braiuat(!a(l,  2  Kol.  Rep.  438;  T'.ac.  Abr.  vol.  4,  p. 
411;  Parsons  on  Contracts,  vol.  3,  p.  '-'50.  But  see  MuUiner  v. 
Florence,  L.  11.  a  Q.  B.  D.  4-)4. 


il 


\      kk 


1 


n 


I.  'i 


t 


T 


», 


I  i 


123 


HORSES  AND  STABLES. 


owner  take  away  all  but  one,  you  could  not  keep 
that  one  until  your  whole  bill  was  jiaid,  but  you 
would  h:ivo  to  give  it  up  on  tender  of  the  amount 
due  for  its  keep.i  Hullo  !  "  he  added,  as  he  saw  me, 
"here's  a  wntleman  who  knows  all  about  such  thinu's. 
Is  not  what  I  state  correct?"  he  coolly  asked. 

"  Certainly,"  I  said,  turning  to  the  landlord. 
"Mr.  Blackstone's  law  is  better  than  his  pay; 
though,  i)erhaps,  Mr.  Story  may  be  said  to  doubt 
his  last  statement."  ^ 

"But,"  said  Boniface,  a  short,  fat  man,  mado 
without  any  apparent  neck  at  all — only  head  and 
shoulders  like  a  codfish — "but  the  rascal  did  not 
pay  me  for  the  last  time  he  put  up  his  old  beast 
here,  and  I'll  keep  it  now  till  I  am  })aid  or  till  it 
dies,  which  latter  event  will  i)robably  happen  iirst  to 
such  a  h'.vx  of  bones." 

"  You  can't  do  that,  old  boy,"  said  Mr.  B.,  de- 
lightedly. 

"  He  is  right  again,"  I  replied.  "  If  you  let  a  guest 
take  away  his  horse,  unless,  indeed,  he  merely  takes 
it  out  for  exercise,  day  by  day,  anlmo  revertendi^^ 
it  amounts  to  giving  him  credit  and  a  relinquish- 
ment of  your  right  of  lien,  so  that  you  can't  after- 
wards retake  it.  And  even  if  the  man  was  to  come 
back  and  run  up  another  account  for  the  keep  of 
his  horse,  although  you  might  detain  it  for  the  lat- 
ter debt,  you  could  not  for  the  former." '^ 

1  ^[oss  V.  Townsend,  1  Bulstr.,207.    But  seo  Story  on  liail- 
meiits,  sec.  47G. 
"  Story  on  Bailments,  sec.  47G. 

3  Allim  V.  Smith,  VI  C.  B.,  N.  S.  G38. 

4  Jones  r.  Tluu'loe,  8  Mod.  172;  Jones  v.  Pearle,  1  Strange. 
5oij;  Parsons  ou  Contracts,  vol.  o,  \}.  250. 


HORSES  AND  STABLES. 


129 


"But  have  i  no  lion  upon  the  horse  of  n  guest? 
Beskles,  I  did  nc^t  let  him  take  it  away.  lie  went 
off  with  it  at  daybreak,  ])efore  any  one  was  up,  tlie 
villain,"  said  mine  liost,  waxing  more  and  more 
wrathy  as  the  thought  of  past  grievances  recurred 
to  liim. 

"He,  lie,  he!"  laughed  B.  "You  might  have 
retaken  it  if  you  had  been  spry  enough,  and  then 
you  might  have  kept  it ;  but  now  it's  too  late,  too 
late,  too  late,  as  the  song  says."  ^ 

"  Exactly  so,"  I  added.  "  Of  course,  my  dear 
sir,  there  is  little  doubt  but  what  you  have  a  right 
to  detain  a  horse,  brought  to  you  by  a  traveler,  for 
its  kee]).2  And  if  you  kept  that  old  nag  you  would 
have  a  perfect  right  to  continue  to  charge  for  the 
food  sup[)lied  from  day  to  day,  while  it  remained 
in  your  possession,  and  that  although  Mr.  B.  dis- 
tinctly told  you  that  he  would  not  be  responsible 
for  anything  supplied  to  liis  horse ;  bi'cause  other- 
wise your  security  would  soon  be  reduced  i  >  the 
value  of   an  old  hide  and  bones.3     But   then  cui 

"  What's  that?  "  asked  the  astonished  imikeeper. 

"  I  mean,  what  -would  you  gain  by  the  additional 
outlay  of  good  fodder?"  I  exjjlained. 

"  Why,  I  would  make  the  ohl  thing  work!"  re- 
jolied  the  man. 

"  No,  indeed  !  "  said  Blackstone.     "  You  would 

1  Ross  V.  Bramstead,  2  Rol.  Hep.  438. 

2  York  V.  Grindstone,  2  Ld.  Ilaym.  8(]().    But  soo  Fox  v.  ^rc- 
Gregor,  11  Barb.  (N.  Y. )41 ;  Saint  v .  Sniit li,  1  Cal(l\v.(Tcnn.  )r>\. 

8  Gilbert  v.  Berkeley,  Skin.  G48.    And  s(!0  Scarfo  v.  Morgan, 
i  M.  &  W.  270;  and  Somes  v.  B.  Emp.  Ell.  Bl.  &.  Ell.  353. 


ill 


I 


m 


^1 


1- 


1^"^ 


h 


I  * 

I  • 
[ 


11   I 


I  1 


i 


ni 


130 


HORSES  AJSD  STABLES. 


have  no  right  to  ride  on  my  horse,  or  use  him  for 
your  own  benefit  in  any  way."  i 

"  You  would  have  no  more  right  to  use  it  for 
your  own  pleasure  and  benefit  than  a  man  who  dis- 
trains a  cow  for  ouo  .  ;i3  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  her 
ruminations.  You  could  onlv  ride  the  horse  for 
the  purpose  of  ja-eserving  its  health  by  proj^jer  exer- 
cise," ^  I  remarked. 

"I  am  dashed  if  I",  '..o  ;,hat."  cried  the  j^ublican, 
waxing  fierce. 

"You  would  have  to  do  ■t,''^  shrieked  Black- 
stone,  triumphanlly. 

"  Well,"  then  roared  the  mast:  r  :  Oie  establish- 
ment, "I'd  sell  the  blamed  thing  quick  enough." 

"  If  you  did  you  would  get  yourself  into  hot 
water,  and  liave  to  pay  me  the  full  value  of  the 
beast;  for  an  innkeeper  can't  sell  a  horse  he  detains 
for  its  board  without  the  consent  of  the  owner.4 
Ho  !  ho  !  ho  !  "  lauijrhed  the  little  rnscal. 

The  poor  landlord  looked  at  me  with  such  a  de- 
spairing glance — a  look  of  a  dying  duck  in  a  thun- 
der-storm— that  I  could  scarce  restrain  my  risible 
faculties  as  I  remarked  : 

"  I  am  afraid  your  adversary  is  correct,  and  not 
even  if  a  liorse  were  to  eat  its  head  off  could  vou 
sell  it,  unless  you  chanced  to  live  in  London  or 

1  Westbrooko  v.  Griffith,  !Moor.  bTG;  Jone3  r.  Tlmrloe,  8 
Mod.  172;  Mullincr  v.  Florence,  L.  11,  3  Q.  B.  D.  481). 

-  Westbrooke  v.  Griffith,  sujjra. 

8  Idem. 

4  Jones  V.  Pcarle,  Str.  5j(>;  Thames  1.  W.  Co.  v.  Pat.  Der- 
rick Co.  1  Jolins.  &  W.  97;  27  L.  J.  0.  714;  Mulliner  v.  rior- 
enco,  L.  R.  3  Q.  B.  D.  4i-4. 


HORSES  AND  STABLES. 


131 


Exeter.  Your  only  remedy  would  be  to  sue  for 
the  i)rice  of  ihe  food,  get  judgment,  and  then  sell.i 
You  cannot  sell  a  right  of  lien,  or  transfer  the 
property,  without  losing  your  right  and  rendering 
yourself  liable  to  an  action.  One  must  proceed  by 
suit.    " 

The  landlord  turned  to  the  rascally  attorney,  and 
shaking  his  fist  at  him,  exclaimed  :  "  Get  out,  and 
if  ever  you  darken  my  door  again — look  out!" 

"  Keep  cool,  sir,  keep  cool,  the  day  is  warm. 
Don't  shake  your  list  in  my  face,  sir.  It  is  not  the 
fir^t  time  I've  done  the  old  chap,"  added  my  un- 
worthy confrere,  turning  to  us  with  a  look  of 
importance ;  "  and  it  will  not  be  the  last,  unless 
I've  read  law  for  naught." 

'^  IIow  did  you  take  him  in  before?"  I  queried. 

"  Well,  some  years  ago  I  was  hard  up — not  the 
llrst,  perhaps  not  the  last  time  I  have  been  in  that 
state — and  I  knew  not  how  to  get  my  team  fed  for 
a  week  or  two.  So,  believing  that  money  had  a 
considerable  influence  with  our  friend  here,  I  got  a 
chap  to  run  off  with  my  i)onies,  bring  them  here, 
and  throw  out  some  hints  that  it  would  be  all  riijjht 
in  a  pecuniary  point  of  view  if  they  could  be  kept 
in  the  stable  for  a  few  days  until  the  affair  blew 
over.  All  went  merry  as  a  marriage  bell.  I  adver- 
tised for  horses  lost,  stolen,  or  strayed,  and  after 
some  three  weeks  ha])pened  here  and  quite  acci- 
dentally, you  know,  found  my  span.  Of  course 
mine  host  wanted  pretty  good  pay,  but  I  talked  to 

i"SVliarton  on  Innk.  122;  Cross  on  Lien,  045  n. 
2  Fox  r.  McGregor,  4  Ikirl).  41;  Ilickmau  u.  Thomas,  IG  Ala. 
CGG;  Miller  v.  Marstou,  85  Me.  153. 


'    Hi 


(      ! 


I 


132 


HOUSES  AND  STABLES. 


; 


■/■t 


'  • 


4\ 


him  like  a  father;  toM  him  tliat  I  knew  that  if  a 
traveler  brings  to  an  inn  the  liorse  of  a  third  per- 
son, the  innkeeper  has  a  perfect  riglit  to  detain  it 
for  its  keep ;  that  of  course  he  was  not  bound  to 
inquire  whose  horse  it  was;  ^  that  tliat  highly  esti- 
mable and  worthy  occupant  of  the  bench  in  days 
that  are  no  more,  I  mean  Judge  Coleridge,  said 
that  with  reference  to  an  innkeei)er's  lien  there  was 
no  difference  between  the  goods  of  a  guest  and 
those  of  a  third  j^crson  brought  by  a  guest.'-^  This 
pleased  the  old  rascal.  Then  I  pleaded  poverty,  but 
tShylock  was  unmoved ;  then  I  assumed  an  appear- 
ance of  anger  at  his  keeping  my  horses  and  went 
away." 

"But  how  did  that  help  you?"  I  asked  impa- 
tiently, growing  weary  of  a  story  that  was  long 
enough  for  the  ears  of  an  antediluvian  patriarch. 

"Oh,  I  had  not  left  the  worthy's  house  live  min- 
utes before  I  happened,  quite  accidentally,  you 
know,  to  meet  the  man  who  had  taken  the  horses. 
Back  we  came.  Boniface  admitted  that  he  was 
the  one  who  had  brought  my  ponies  to  the  inn. 
Then  said  I:  'Sir,  this  man  has  confessed  that  he 
told  you  that  he  did  not  own  the  liorses,  that  ho 
liad  stolen  them ;  you,  therefore,  became  a  party  to 
his  crime  and  have  no  right  to  keep  my  horses  any 
longer  for  their  charges.  See — here  is  the  law ; '  and 
I  showed  him  Oliphant  on  Horses,  page  120  ;  3  r^^i 

-York  V.  Grcuaugli,  2  Ld.  Raym.  SGG;  llobinson  v.  Walker, 
Pop.  I'll. 

^Turrill  v.  Crawley,  13  Ad.  &  E.  (N.  S.)  11)7,-  Mauuiug  v. 
Ilolknbcck.  27  ^Vis.  202. 

«  See,  also,  Johnson  v.  Hill,  3  Stark.  172. 


HORSES  AND  STABLES, 


103 


the   fellow   at   once   caved   in.     Ta-ta,   Mr.   Law- 
yer." 

And  so  off  went  the  man  to  practice  liis  knaveries 
and  trickeries  on  some  otlier  nnfortunatc  members 
of  the  fycnui  homo.  The  only  consolation  of  a  vir- 
tuous man  is  that 

"  Donhtloss  tlio  pleasure  is  as  groat 
Of  beiug  cheated  as  to  cheat." 

"  Well,"  said  my  friend,  who  had  all  this  time 
been  stand ini;  bv,  a  silent  but  not  an  unbenefited 
listener,  "  Well,  it  strikes  me  that  the  law  concern- 
ing innkeei)ers  and  horses  needs  what  Lord  Dun- 
dreary thought  the  country  did,  that  is  to  say, 
namely,  to  wit,  improving!" 

"  True  for  you, '  I  replied.  "  For  instance,  until 
recently  it  was  doubtful  whether  an  innkeeper  who 
detains  a  horse  as  a  pledge  for  its  keep,  can  detain 
also  the  saddle  and  bridle,  or  even  the  halter  which 
fastens  it  to  the  stall.^  And  where  a  man  stopped 
with  his  horse  at  an  inn  under  suspicious  circum- 
stances, and  the  police  ordered  the  innkeei)er  to 
retain  the  animal,  it  was  held  that  the  poor  landlord 
had  no  lien.^  And  if  a  neiii-hbor  leaves  his  wvv* 
with  an  innkeeper  to  be  fed  and  kept,  allowing  him 
to  use  it  at  his  pleasure,  and  a  creditor  of  the  owner 
seize  it  for  a  debt,  the  poor  i)ublican  has  no  lien  for 
the  animal's  keep;^  nor^vould  he  have,  where  ho 


Hi 


I 


■  .  i 


'*: 


i      ^l 


I     ji' 


I 


1  Wharton,  p.  120;  Stirt  v.  Drungold,  3  Bulst.  289.    But  see 
Mullincr  v.  Florence,  L.  R.  3  Q.  B.  D.  484. 

2  Burns  v.  Bigot,  1)  C.  &  P.  208. 

8  Grinnell  v.  Cook,  3  Hill,  (N.  Y.)  486. 
1«. 


!     I 


fl 


4] 


134 


nORSES   AND  STABLES. 


Loanls  tlio  horses  of  a  stage  line,  under  a  special 
ai^reement."  ^ 

*'Wliat  about  a  livery-stable  keeper?"  asketl 
Do  Gex. 

"Down  in  G.'orgia,  it  was  held  tliat  lie  liad  a 
right  of  lien  on  horses  and  buggies  left  in  liis  keep- 
ing;- l)ut  everywhere  else,  it  is  considered  lliat  ho 
lias  no  such  lien,  for  tlie  contract  witli  liim  is  that 
tlio  owner  is  to  have  tlic  horse  wlienever  required ;'^ 
and  tlie  claim  of  a  lien  would  be  inconsistent  with 
the  neoKissary  enjoyment  of  the  jiroperty."  ^ 

"  Suppose  the  livery  man  pays  out  money  to  a 
vet.  for  advice?" 

"  That  would  make  no  difference.^  But  if  a  man 
who  is  both  an  innkeeper  and  a  livery-stable  keeper 
receives  a  horse,  and  does  not  say  ho  takes  it  in  tlio 
latter  capacity,  he  has  all  the  responsibilities  of  an 
innkeeper,  as  well  as  all  his  j)rivileges.^  On  the 
oilier  hand,  if  an  iniikee})er  receives  liorses  and 
carriages  on  livery,  the  fact  that  the  owner  on  a 
subsequent  day  tidvcs  refreshment  at  the  inn  will 
not  give  the  innkeeper  an  innkeeper's  rights.'^  I 
was  almost  forgetting  to  say  that  even  a  livcry- 
stablo  keeper  may  have  a  lien  by   express   agree- 

1  Dixon  V.  Diilby,  0  U.  C.  Q.  B.  79. 

2Grammoll  v.  Schley,  41  Ga.  112. 

8  Judson  V.  Etheridge,  1  C.  .<;;  :M.743;  Anderson  v.  Bell,  2  0. 
&  M.  oOl;  Parsons  on  Contracts,  vol.  o,  p.  250. 

^Kinlock  v.  Craig,  3  L.  II.  110;  Tayloru.  Robinson,  8 Taunt. 
G4S;  Jackson  v.  Cummins,  5  M.  &  W.  342. 

5  Orchard  v.  Rackstraw,  9  C,  B.  G98;  Hickman  v.  Thomas, 
10  Ala.  GGGjTliicksteiu  v.  Howard,  8  Blackf.  535. 

c  Mason  v.  Thompson,  9  Pick.  280 

'Smith  V.  Dearlove,  G  C.  B.  132. 


HORSES  AND   STABLES. 


135 


mont;i  and  if  he  exercises  any  labor  or  trouble  in 
the  improvement  of  the  animals,  ho  will  have  a  lien 
lur  his  charges. 2 

"Well,  I  rather  fancy  that  the  ladies  will  think 
we  have  not  almost,  but  altogether,  forgotten  them, 
and  intend  to  pass  another  night  here.  Let  us  bo 
oil." 

^  AVallaco  v.  Woodnrato,  1  Kvan  ."l:  :sr  1'):? 

r'nm'"-'^"  r •//*'^"'"' ''  ^^-  ^^  ^*-  -^':  ''  I5ins.i;i0;  Jackson  r. 
Cummins,  5  M.  cS:  W.  342;  Harris  v.  Woodruff,  124  Mass.  205. 


I     f 


!'f 


I 


.  1 


P 

f  I; 


i  '% 


,'  ■■  '> 
it 


Chapter   VIII. 


WHAT    IS    A    LIEN? 


I'l 


t       1 

I 


As  wo  turned  to  Icuvo  tlio  j)rcmiscs  to  liastcn 
back  to  our  respective  wives,  leaving  our  Jelui  to 
bring  tlie  carriage  and  horses,  we  were  accosted  by 
a  most  (lilaj)idated  specimen  of  the  genus  "seedy," 
wlio  api)eared  to  be  a  kind  of  stable-boy  or  hostler 
not  overstocked  with  brains.  Judging  from  :i  cursory 
glance,  liis  pants  had  parted  in  irreconcilable  anger 
from  his  l)oots,  and  ha<l  cautiously  shrunk  well  up 
to  the  knees — as  if  aj>prehensive  of  :i  kick  from 
the  biix  too  wliicli  was  well  enouixli  to  bo  outside 
the  remains  of  the  boots;  here  and  there  patches  of 
bare  skin  peci)ed  out  through  his  tattered  set-u^xjus, 
as  if  i)loased  to  see  dayliglit  and  have  a  liulo  fresh 
air.  Yet  of  such  varied  hues  were  they,  that  the 
most  ])rofound  etlmologist  would  be  perplexed  to 
decide  wliether  the  jnan  should  be  classed  amonuj 
the  Caucasian,  Mongolian,  Malay,  Indian,  or  Negro 
race,  or  whether  lie  was  a  hybrid  comj)ound  of 
all  live.  His  coat,  in  colors,  would  have  rivaled 
Joseph's,  and  made  the  teeth  of  his  naughty  breth- 
ren water  witli  tenfold  jealousy.  His  hat  might 
have  for  generations  been  used  in  winter  to  exclude 
the  rains  and  snows  from  a  broken  window,  in  sum- 
mer for  the  breeding  place  of  barn-door  fowls.  The 
countenance  of  this  tatterdemalion  seemed  as  empty 
as  his  pockets,  and  his  brain  as  disordered  as  hia 

C136] 


WIIAT   IS   A  LIEN? 


137 


lie 
to 


led 
th- 
;ht 
do 
m- 
he 

■>ty 

lis 


long  yollow  hair;  liis  breath  as  ah'oliol'u;  as  tlio 
Htore-rooni  of  a  dislillery;  liis  tout  cnHcmhle  aiiy- 
lliiiiU  hut  Kim'.'cstivo  of  the  *'is  ho  not  .1  man  and  a 
brother"  Bentiment. 

In  ]>iteou.s  tones  tliis  wreck  of  what,  ]iorcliance, 
was  onco  .'I  niot!ier\s  darling,  fi  fatlier's  pride,  asked: 

"  Ijo  you  a  liyiir,  sur?" 

*'  Yes.  What  do  you  want  ?  "  I  returned. 
'  "  Weil,  sur,  I'm  a,  poor  man,  witli  not  a  cint  to 
bliss  myself  wid  ;  and  I  conio  here  one  day  and  got 
a  bite  of  viltals,  and  bedad,  sur,  the  ouhl  lindlord 
eeized  me  for  rint,  and  said,  says  lie,  that  lie  had 
a  lane  upon  me  for  those  same  scraps  of  cold  food; 
and  says  he,  I  must  stay  hero  and  work  for  him 
until  I  can  pay  up.  Now,  kin  lie  C  >  that  same, 
Vur  honor  ?  " 

"  No,  most  certainly  not.  He  has  no  right  to 
keep  you  or  any  other  man  for  such  a  reason. 1  So 
you  had  better  be  off." 

"Long  life  to  your  honor,  and  may  the  holy 
saints — but  kin  he,"  and  again  the  voice  sank  into 
a  wail,  "  kin  he  kape  me  clothes  ?  " 

"Nothing  that  you  have  on,"'^  I  replied,  as  I 
turned  away,  thinking  that  I  could  hear  the  scratch 
of  the  recording  angel's  pen  as  he  scored  another 
to  the  number  of  my  good  deeds. 

"  Was  it  not  considered  at  one  time  that  an  inn- 
keeper had  the  right  to  detain  the  ])ersons  of  his 
guests  for  the  j^ayment  of  their  bills?"  queried  De 
Gex. 

iSunbolf  V.  Alford,  3^1.  &  "W.  254;  Parsons  on  Contracts, 
vol.  3,  p.  250. 
2  Ibid. 


i\\ 


'  'j| 


138 


WHAT   IS  A  LIEN? 


"Yes,  ol<l  Bncon  so  lays  it  clown,i  and  so  did  one 
Judge  Eyros,2  loiii^  sinco  gone  to  his  account ;  and 
iu  some  of  tlic  old  text-books  the  same  view  is 
taken.  But  tlio  idea  was  exploded  forty  years  ago 
by  the  combined  effort  of  Lord  Abingcr,  C.  B.,  and 
bis  puisnes,  Barons  Parke,  Bolland,  and  Gurney.'* 

*'Ou  wliat  occasion?" 

"A  mini  of  tlio  name  of  Sunbolf  sued  an  inn- 
keeper for  assaulting  and  beating  liim,  shaking  and 
pulling  bini  about,  stripping  and  pulling  off  bis 
coat,  carrying  it  away  and  converting  it  to  bis  own 


5> 


use. 

"  That  was  rather  roucrh  of  him." 

"  It  was,  but  the  innkeeper,  Alford,  replied  that 
ho  kept  a  common  inn  for  the  reception,  lodging 
and  entertainment  of  travelers  and  others;  and 
that  just  before  the  time  when  he  did  all  those 
things  complained  of,  Sunbolf  and  divers  other 
l")ersons  in  company  with  him  came  into  the  inn  as 
guests;  and  that  ho  then  found  and  provided  them, 
at  their  request,  with  divers  quantities  of  tea  and 
other  victuals;  and  that  Sunbolf  and  the  other  per- 
sons tiicreupon,  and  just  ])eforc  the  committing  of 
the  grievances,  b^'came  mid  were  indebted  to  him 
in  a  certain  small  sum  of  money,  to  wit,  eleven 
shillings  and  three  pence,  for  the  said  tea  and  vict- 
uals :  and  thereupon  he,  the  innkeeiier,  just  before 
he  did  the  things  of  which  ho  was  accused,  required 
and  demanded  of  Sunbolf  and  the  others,  payment 
by  tliera,  or  some  or  one  of  them,  of  the  said  sum, 

1  Bacon's  Abr.  Inns.  D. 

2  Newton  V.  Triaj,  1  Shower,  2G9. 


WHAT   IS  A  LILN  1 


139 


or  some  security  or  pledge  for  the  payment  tliere- 
of;    but    Sunbolf   an<l  tlie   others   wholly  refused 
then,  or  at  any  other  time,  to  ])ay  to  liini  the  s;iid 
sum,  or  leave  wilh  or  give  to  him  any  security  or 
jdedgo  for  tho  i^aynient  of  the  same  ;    and  before 
he  did  the  acts  spoken  of,  Siiid)olf   persisted  in 
leaving,  and  would  liavc  departed  and  left  the  said 
inn,  against  the  innkeeper's  will  ;:nd  consent,  with- 
out i)avini]'  the  said   sum  of   eleven  shillings  and 
three  pence,  so  due  as  aforesaid,  had  not  he.  A., 
kept  and  detained  him,  Sunbolf,  or  some  other  of 
the  said   persons,  or  their  goods  and  chattels,  or 
some  of   them,   until    they  paid  it;    and  because 
Sunbolf  and  the  others  would  g  >  and  depart  from 
the  said  inn  without  paying,  and  refused  to  pay 
that  sum  to  him,  and  because  the  simi   remained 
"wholly  due  to  him,  and  because  Sunbolf  and  the 
others  would  not,  and  refused  to  leave  with  or  give 
any  pledge  or  security  whatever  to  him  for  the 
payment  of  tliat  sum,  and  he  (that  is,  Alford)  could 
not  procure  or  obtain  from  them,  or  any  or  either 
of  them,  any  other  ])ledge  or  se(;urity  than  the  said 
coat  mentioned,  he,  (the  said  Alford)  at  tlie  time 
mentioned,  did  gently  lay  his  hands  on  Sunbolf  to 
prevent  him  going  and  departing  from  the  said  inn 
without  his  or  the  other  perstnis  paying  the  said 
eleven  shillings  and   three    pence,   or  giving  him 
some  pledge  or  security  for  the  i)ayment  of  it ;  and 
he  did  then,  for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  such  secu- 
rity or  pledge,  to  :i  gentle  and  necessary  degree, 
lay  his  hands  uj^on  Sunbolf,  and  strip  and  i)ull  the 
said  coat  from  and  off  of  liim,  tho  same  bein*'  a 


l! 


■v, 


( 


p! 


uo 


WHAT  IS  A  LIEN? 


reasonaljlc  i)lGrlgo  or  Bccurity  in  th.it  bt-hnlf,  ninl 
then  placed  tho  snmo  in  tlio  s:iul  inn  ^vllorein  ho 
hud  thenco  thitherto  kept  and  detained  t!ie  s:nno  as 
fiucli  pledge  and  security,  for  tho  said  debt  of  eleven 
shillings  and  tlireo  ])ence,  being  wholly  duo  and 
unpaid  to  hun  ;  and,  therefore,  he  (Ali'ord)  suffered 
and  permilled  Sunbolf  and  tho  others  to  go  and 
depart  from  tho  said  inn  ;  and  on  tho  occasion 
aforesaid  lie  necessarily  and  unavoidably,  to  a  small 
degree,  shook  and  pulled  about  Sunbolf;  and  these 
were  tho  acts  complained  of." 

"Well  said  the  wise  man  of  old,  ^ Audi  alteram 
partem^''  said  my  friend.  "Alford's  story  gives 
quite  a  different  aspect  to  the  whole  affair." 

"  It  gives  you,  at  any  rate,  an  idea  of  the  long-^ 
winded  ple:idings  in  vogue  in  the  year  of  grace 
1838." 

"  Wjis  A.'s  explanation  satisfactory  to  the  court?" 

*'0h,  dear,  no!  Parke,  B.,  asked,  during  the  ar- 
gument, if  an  innkeeper  liad  aright  to  turn  his  guest 
out  without  a  coat ;  or  if  he  had  a  right  to  take  off 
all  his  clothes,  and  send  him  away  naked;  and  af- 
terwards, in  giving  judgment,  lie  clearly  and  dis- 
tinctly answered  his  own  queries,  and  said  that  an 
innkeeper  had  no  ])ower  to  strip  a  guest  of  liis 
clothes;  for  if  lio  had,  then,  if  the  innkeeper  took 
tlic  coat  off  his  back,  and  that  proved  an  insuflicient 
pledge,  ho  might  go  on  and  strip  him  naked,  and 
that  would  apply  either  to  a  male  or  female " 

"That  Avould  be  sliockinij!" 

"The  learned  baron  merely  considered  it  utterly 
absurd,  and  that  the  idea  could  not  be  entertained 


I 


WHAT   IS  A  LIEN? 


141 


for  a  moment.  Another  of  the  judges  said  that  lie 
h:id  always  understood  the  law  to  bo  tliat  the 
clothes  on  the  person  of  a  man,  and  in  liis  posses- 
sion at  tliG  time,  arc  not  to  bo  considered  as  goods 
to  which  the  right  of  lien  can  properly  apply  ;  that 
the  consequence  of  holding  otherwise  might  be  to 
subject  parties  to  disgrace  and  duress  in  order  to 
compel  tlieni  to  i)ay  a  trifling  debt  wliich,  after  all, 
was  not  due,  and  which  the  innkeeper  had  no  pre- 
tence for  demnndinsr." 

"But,  my  dear  fellow,  we  were  speaking  of  the 
right  of  a  landlord  to  keep  the  body  of  his  guest." 

"To  be  sure  w^e  were.  The  Chief  Baron  said 
that  if  an  innkeeper  had  a  riglit  to  detain  a  guest  for 
the  non-payment  of  liis  bill,  ho  had  a  right  to  de- 
tain him  until  the  bill  was  paid,  which  might  bo  for 
years  or  might  bo  for  aye ;  so  that  by  the  common 
law,  a  man  who  owed  a  small  debt,  for  which  he 
could  not  be  imprisoned  by  legal  process,  might 
yet  be  detained  by  an  innkeeper  for  life.  Such  a 
proposition  my  Lord  Chief  Baron  siiid  was  mon- 
strous, and,  according  to  my  lord  Baron  Parke, 
was  startling."  ^ 

"  For  my  part,  I  think  it  is  high  time  we  rejoined 
the  ladies,"  said  De  Gex,  with  the  air  of  a  man  sat^ 
isfied  with  what  he  had  heard. 

"All  right;  throw  law  to  the  dogs,  to  improve 
upon  the  immortal  bard." 

*  •  #  *  *  # 

Our  return  drive  was  as  pleasant  as  that  of  tho 


iSunbolf  V.  Alford,  3  Mees.  &  ^Y.  248. 


142 


WUAT   IS  A  LIEN? 


preceding  day,  except  that  wo  iniglit  well  have  ex- 
claimed, in  tlie  words  of  the  poet : 


t  * 


i;  % 


"IIow  tho  claslicd  dry  du3t, 
Nebulous  nothing, 
Nettled  our  nasal 
Nostrils,  you  noodles  I  " 

En  route,  wo  stopped  at  a  little  wayside  inn  for 
luncheon.  On  the  table  tho  j^icce  de  vcsistanGQ  was 
beefsteak. 

"  I  never,"  observed  De  G.,  "  see  beefsteak  but  I 
think  of  poor  old  George  III." 

"Had  he  a  particular  penchant  for  it?"  I  asked. 

"Not  that.  But  once,  when  his  intellect  Avas 
sadly  clouded,  he  was  breakfasting  at  Kew,  and 
the  conversation  turned  on  the  great  scarcity  of 
beef  in  England.  '  Why  don't  the  jDCople  phuit 
more  beef?'  asked  his  majesty.  Of  course  he  was 
told  that  beef  could  not  be  raised  from  seed  or 
slips ;  but  he  seemed  incredulous,  and,  taking  some 
pieces  of  steak,  he  went  out  into  the  garden  and 
planted  tliem.  Next  morning  he  visited  the  spot 
to  see  if  the  beef  had  sprouted,  and  iinding  some 
snails  crawling  about,  he  took  them  for  small  oxen, 
and  joyfully  exclaimed  to  his  wife :  '  Here  they 
are ;  here  they  arc,  Charlotte — horns  and  all ! '  " 

"  Poor  fellow — poor  fellow ! " 

By  and  by,  apple  dumplings  appeared.  "Ila!" 
I  exclaimed,  "here  are  more  reminders  of  the  poor 
old  king!  How  his  Britannic  majesty  used  to  puz- 
zle over  the  iDroblem  of  how  the  apples  got  iusido 
the  pastry." 


WHAT   IS  A  LIEN? 


143 


"  The  Chinese  cooks  would  have  bewildered  him 
still  more  with  some  of  their  ingenious  perform- 
ance?," remarked  De  Gox. 

"In  what  respect?"  queried  the  ladies. 

"At  a  recent  banquet  in  San  Francisco,  an  orange 
was  placed  beside  the  plate  of  each  guest.  The 
fruit,  to  an  ordinary  observer,  appeared  like  any 
other  oranges  ;  but,  on  being  cut  open,  they  were 
found  to  contain,  niirahile  dlctu " 

"What?"  asked  my  wife. 

"Excuse  me,  I  should  not  have  quoted  Latin. 
Thev  were  found  to  contain  five  different  kinds  of 

ft/ 

delicate  jellies.  Of  course,  every  one  was  puzzled, 
first  of  all,  to  find  how  the  jelly  got  in;  and  giving 
up  that  as  a  conundrum  too  difficult  to  bo  solved, 
he  found  himself  in  a  worse  quandary  over  tlie 
problem  as  to  how  the  pulpy  part  of  the  orange 
got  out.  Colored  eggs  were  served  up,  and  inside 
of  them  were  found  nuts,  jellies,  meats,  and  con- 
fectionery." 

"  Wonderful  men  those  Celestials !  "  I  exclaimed. 
"They  must  have  got  such  notions  from  the  ban- 
queting table  of  Jove  himself." 

"I  tliought  tliey  indulged  in  nothing  nicer  than 
cats  or  dogs,  rats  or  mice,  with  an  occasional  dash 
of  bird's-nest  soup,"  said  Mrs.  De  Gox. 

"Altogether  a  mistaken  notion,"  returned  her 
husband. 

Tea  was  the  beverage.  I  nearly  upset  the  table 
as  I  reached  over  for  the  teapot,  whereupon  my 
comrade  exclaimed  in  the  words  of  Gibber's  rha^j- 
6ody: 


rf?rr 


\i  ^ 


\ 


144 


WHAT   LS  A  LIEN? 


11 


l\ 


'I 


"  Tea,  thou  soft,  thou  sober,  sage  and  venerable 
liquid;  thou  ffuialo  tongiie-runniug,  smile-smooth- 
ing, heart-o])enlng,  wink-tippiiig  cordial,  to  wlioso 
glorious  insipidity  wo  owo  the  lKipi>iost  moments 
of  our  lives,  let  me  fall  prostrate." 

"Time's  up,"  I  said,  as  straightening  myself  I 
swallowed  another  cupful. 

,  #  *  «  #  • 

When  we  were  again  fairly  under  way  and  the 
ladies  were  quietly  talking  some  scandal,  sotto  voce, 
I  said  to  De  Gex :  "  Keferring  again  to  the  inn- 
keeper's lien " 

"Let  us  have  no  more  about  it,"  he  replied 
promptly.  "  Honestly,  I  must  say  that  you  are  not 
a  Paganini  and  cannot  please  by  always  jjlaying 
UDon  one  strimjr." 

"Perhajjs  not,  but  as  rare  old  Ben  Jonson  re- 
marked, '  when  I  take  the  humor  of  a  thing  once,  I 
am  like  a  tailor's  needle — I  go  through,'  and  a  little 
more  information  on  that  important  subject  may 
prove  useful  to  you  some  day." 

"If  you  will  talk  on  that  dry  subject,  kindly  in- 
form me  why  publicans  have  a  lien  at  all,"  said  my 
friend. 

"  Well,  you  know  that  a  lien  is  the  right  of  a 
man  to  whom  any  chattel  is  given  to  detain  it 
until  some  jjecuniary  demand  upon  or  in  respect  of 
it  has  been  satislied  by  the  owner,  and  as  the  law 
treats  an  innkeeper  as  a  i)ublic  servant,  and  imposes 
upon  him  certain  duties — making  him,  for  example, 
receive  all  guests  who  are  willing  and  able  to 
pay,  and  are  unobjectionable  on  moral,  2)ecuniary, 


WHAT   IS  A  LIEN? 


145 


or  hygienic  grounds,  and  bestow  on  tlie  preserva- 
tion of  their  goods  an  extraordinary  amount  of 
care —  so,  to  compensate  liini  for  this  obligation, 
the  hiw  gives  him  the  i)ower  of  detaining  his  guest's 
goods,  (exce])t  such  as  are  in  tlie  visitor's  actual 
possession  and  custody,  in  his  hand  for  example,) 
until  he  pays  for  the  entertaimnent  afforded,  in. 
eluding,  of  course,  remuneration  for  the  care  of 
those  goods.  The  lien  extends  to  all  the  goods  and 
chattels  of  the  guest,  even  those  especially  handed 
over  to  the  host  and  ])laced  by  him  ai)art  from  the 
personal  goods  of  his  visitor."'  ^ 

"  Then,  I  suppose  an  iimkeeper  has  a  lien  upon 
the  goods  of  a  guest  only." 

"  Exactly  so ;  so  that  if  he  receive  the  person  as 
a  friend,  or  a  boarder,^  or  under  any  special  agree- 
ment,3  or  an  arrangement  to  i)ay  at  a  future  time,^ 
he  has  no  lien  upon  the  goods,  for  he  has  no  re- 
sponsibility with  regard  to  them.  In  one  case, 
however,  it  was  decided  that  if  a  man  came  to  an 
hotel  as  a  guest,  his  subsequently  arranging  to 
board  by  the  week  would  not  alter  the  character  in 
which  he  was  originally  received,  nor  take  away 
the  host's  rii^ht  of  lien."^ 

"  Suppose  things  are  brought  which  the  innkeeper 
is  not  bound  to  receive — what  then?" 


.  vl 


Sii     i 


iMullineru.  Florence,  L.  H.  3  Q.  B.  D.  485. 

2Dropey.Tbaire,  Latch,  127;  Crinstono  r.  laukccper,  Iletl. 
49 ;  Pollock  v.  Landis,  30  Iowa,  (J51  ;  Ilursh  v.  liyors,  21)  Mo. 
409  ;  Ewart  v.  Stark,  8  Rich.  (S.  C.)  423. 

8  Wintermute  v.  Clarke,  5  Sandf .  242. 

4  "Whartcni,  p.  123. 

fi  Berkshire  Co.  v.  Troctor,  7  Cush.  417. 
1». 


U4 


14G 


WHAT   IS  A  LIEN? 


"  Where  he  actually  takes  in  goods  for  a  guest, 
whether  he  were  legally  bound  to  do  so  or  not,  he 
is  responsible  for  their  safety,  and  so  has  a  lien 
upon  them.i  But  if  anything  is  left  with  liim, 
merely  to  take  care  of,  by  one  who  does  not  him- 
self put  up  at  the  house,  the  poor  innkeeper  has  no 
right  to  keep  them  until  paid  for  his  trouble  ;2  un- 
less, indeed,  it  is  a  horse,  or  other  animal,  out  of 
the  keep  of  wliich  he  can  receive  a  benefit.^  And 
you  heard  old  Blackstone  say,  this  a.  m.,  that  the 
proprietor  is  not  bound  to  inquire  whether  or  not 
the  guest  is  the  real  owner  of  the  goods ;  ^  and  if 
the  guest  turns  out  a  thief,  still  the  true  owner  can- 
not get  back  his  properly  without  paying  the 
charges  upon  it.^  In  Georgia,  however,  it  has  been 
held  that  the  innkeeper  has  no  lien  against  the  true 
owner,  exuept  for  the  charges  upon  the  specific  ar- 
ticle on  which  the  lien  is  claimed."  ^ 

"  But  supposing  he  really  knows  that  the  guest 
is  not  the  owner?"  said  my  companion. 

"  Then  he  has  no  lien.  Broadwood,  the  cele- 
brated piano  .Tianufacturer,  loaned  a  piano  to  M. 
Hababier,  who  was  staying  at  a  hotel.  The  court 
held  that,  as  it  was  furnished  to  the  guest  for  his 
temporary  use  by  a  third  party  and  the  innkeeper 

iTrelfall  v.  Berwick,  41  Law  J.  Q.  B.  266 ;  affirmed,  L.  R. 
lOQ.  B.  (Exch.)^lO. 

2  Bennett  v.  Mellor,  5  T.  H.  273. 

8  Allen  V.  Smith,  12  Com.  B.  N.  S.  038  ;  Peet  v.  McGraw,  25 
Wend.  654. 

*  Johnson  v.  Hill,  3  Stark.  172  ;  Kent  v.  Shuckard,  2  Bam. 
&Adol.  805. 

5  Johnson  v.  Hill,  supra. 

^  Domestic  Sewing  Machine  Go.  v.  Walters,  50  Ga.  573w 


WHAT  IS  A  LIEN  ? 


117 


knew  it  belonged  to  such  party,  and  as  Ilababicr 
had  not  brought  it  to  the  place  as  liis  own,  either 
upon  his  coming  to  or  while  staying  at  tlie  inn,  tlie 
proprietor  had  no  lien  upon  it.^  But  of  course,  if 
a  servant,  or  an  agent,  in  the  course  of  his  employ- 
ment, come  to  an  inn  and  runs  up  a  bill,  the  pro- 
prietor has  a  lien  upon  his  master's  goods  in  the 
servant's  custody."  2 

"  How  long  does  this  right  last  ?  " 

"Only  so  long  as  the  goods  remain  in  the  inn. 
If  the  guest  goes  away  and  then  comes  back  again, 
the  publican  cannot  retain  them  for  the  prior  debt.^ 
If,  however,  the  unsophisticated  landlord  is  be- 
guiled into  letting  them  go  by  a  fraudulent  repre- 
sentation, his  riglit  remains;^  and  if  they  are  taken 
away,  he  may  follow  them  if  he  does  not  loiter.5 
Delays  are  always  dangerous,  except  in  cases  of 
matrimony.  Of  course,  a  tender  of  the  money 
claimed  extinguishes  the  lien ;  ^  but  it  must  be  a 
valid  tender.  Tossing  down  a  lot  of  money  on  a 
table,  and  offering  it  if  the  innkeeper  will  take  it  in 
full  of  the  bill,  is  not  a  proper  tender.7  Sometimes, 
if  too  much  is  claimed,  or  the  claim  is  on  a  wrong 
account,  a  tender  may  not  be  necessary."  ^ 

iBroadwood  v.  Granara,  10  Ex.  423.  See,  also,  Carlisle  v. 
Quittlebaum,  2  Bail.  452  ;  Fox  v.  McGregor,  11  Barb.  41. 

"^  Cross  on  Lien,  p.  30  ;  Snead  u.  Watkins,  1  Com.  B.  N.  S.  2G7. 

3Byall  V. ,  Atk.  1G5.    See,  also,  Chapter  VII. 

4  Manning  v.  Hollenbeck,  27  Wis.  202. 

CDicaa  v.  Stockley,  7  Car.  &  P.  587  ;  Bristol  v.  Wilsmore,  1 
Barn.  &  C.  514. 

OKatcliff  y.  Davies,  Cro.  Jac.  244. 

7  Gordon  v.  Cox,  7  Car.  &  P.  172. 

8  Per  Willes.  J.,  Allen  v.  Smith,  12  Com.  B.  N.  S.  C44. 


1 


148 


WHAT   IS  A  LIEN? 


1 
1    t 

* 


;    f 


1 

J 


"  Must  the  man  say  wliy  he  refuses  to  give  up 
the  goods  ?  " 

"  If  lie  gives  a  reason  for  detaining  them  other 
than  liis  right  of  lien,  he  waives  that,  and  it  is  gone  ; 
Btill,  merely  omitting  to  mention  it  when  the  goods 
are  demanded  will  not  prevent  him  enforcing  it."l 

"  Could  not  a  guest  get  off  by  paying  a  small 
Bum  on  account  ?  " 

"  No ;  for  then  a  farthing  in  cash  would  destroy 
the  right; 2  but  taking  a  note  j^ay able  at  a  future 
day  will  put  a  stop  to  it."  3 

"  I  believe  that  the  landlord  cannot  sell  the  goods 
seized,"  suggested  my  comrade. 

"No,  except  by  consent  or  operation  of  Liw."* 

"  Is  there  no  limit  to  the  amount  for  which  the 
lien  can  exist?" 

"  That  point  was  disposed  of  in  a  case  where  a 
young  fellow's  mother  asked  a  hotel-keeper  not  to 
allow  her  son,  who  was  a  guest  in  the  house,  more 
than  a  certain  quantity  of  brandy  and  water  per 
diem,  yet  mine  host  supplied  the  youth  with  con- 
siderably more  of  that  beverage  than  was  named. 
When  the  bill  was  disputed,  the  judge  held,  that 
a  landlord  was  not  bound  to  examine  the  nature  of 
the  articles  ordered  by  a  guest  before  he  supplied 
them;  but  might  furnish  whatever  was  ordered, 
and  that  the  guest  was  bound  to  pay  for  them,  pro- 


i 


1  Owen  V.  Knislit,  5  Scott,  307. 

2  Hodgson  V.  Loy,  7  T.  R.  mO. 
sHorncastle  v.  Farran,  2  Barn.  &  Aid.  407. 

*Case  V.  Fogg,  46  Mo.  (56;  Thames  Iron  "W.  Co.  v.  Patent 
Derrick  Co.  1  Johns.  &  \V.  i)7j  Mulliucr  v.  Florence  L.  11.3 
Q.  li.  484. 


WHAT    IS  A  LIEN? 


149 


vided  lio  was  possessed  of  reason,  and  not  an  in- 
fant." 1 

"Oh,  llicn,.'i  juvenile's  goods  and  chattels  cannot 
be  kept  for  his  little  liotel  bill?  Another  privilege 
gone  forever  with  the  haj)py  days  of  childhood," 
said  De  Gex. 

"I  am  not  quite  so  sure.  In  Kentucky,  it  was 
held  that  they  could  be,  if  the  entertainment  was 
furnislied  in  good  faith,  without  tlie  knowledge;  that 
the  youngster  was  acting  impro])erly  and  contrary 
to  the  wishes  of  his  guardian;  and  it  was  even  held 
that  the  iinikeeper  had  a  lien  for  money  given  to 
the  boy  and  expended  by  him  for  necessaries,"  ^  I 
remarked. 

"I  trust,"  said  my  companion,  "that  there  is  not 
very  niucii  more  to  be  said  on  the  subject.  I  feel 
that  I  am  growing  thin,  and  will  soon  require  a  lean- 
to  to  support  me." 

"You  are  like  the  rest  of  the  world,  ingrato  and 
thankless.  Here  I  have  been  giving  you  freely  of 
what  has  cost  me  long,  weary  hours  of  study  and 
gallons  of  petroleum,  and  still  you  grumble.  Only 
two  points  more  would  I  endeavor  to  impress  upon 
your  memory,  the  knowledge  of  whicli  may  prove 
to  be  worth  to  you  fully  the  cost  of  this  drive  of 


ours. 


?j 


"  Well,  I  will  restrain  myself  and  lend  a  listen* 


incr  ear. 


5> 


"In  the  first  place,  if  an  innkeeper  should  retain 
your  trunks  for  your  hotel  bill,  you  need  pay  hina 


l!  ? 


I  ■ 


1  Proctor  V.  Nicholson,  7  Car.  &  P.  C7. 

2  Watson  V.  Cross,  2  Duv.  (Ken.)  147. 


150 


WHAT   IS   A   LIEN  ? 


I 


; 


notliiiig  for  his  troii!)le  in  taking  caroof  tbcm  tlicrc- 
aftcr;  when  you  nrc  llusli  ngjiin,  you  may  call,  and 
on  paying  the  original  amount  due,  demand  your 
trapH.l  In  that  way,  you  see,  you  may  sometimes 
get  rid  of  the  trouble  of  carrying  your  baggage 
ahoiit  with  you.  Then,  again,  whenever  possible, 
travel  in  company,  with  all  the  baggage  in  one 
trunk;  let  tlic  one  who  owns  the  trunk  ])ay  his 
bill,  and  then  all  may  go  on  their  way  rejoicing ; 
for  where  a  paterfamilias  took  his  daughters  to 
an  hotel  and  the  board  of  all  was  charged  to  the 
old  man,  (who  afterward  became  insolvent)  it  was 
well  decided  that  the  trunks  of  one  of  the  girls 
could  not  be  detained  for  the  whole  amount  due 
by  the  party.  Every  man  for  himself,  seems  to  be 
the  rule."  2 

"What  are  you  two  men  gossiping  about?" 
Fuddenly  broke  in  Mrs.  Lawyer,  she  and  her  com- 
panion having  fully  exhausted  their  stock  of  chit- 
chat. 

"Gossiping!"  saidDeGex;  "no  indeed;  as  Sir 
Boyle  illoche  would  say,  I  deny  the  allegation, 
and  defy  the  allegator." 

"  None  with  a  properly  constituted  mind  would 
indulge  in  such  a  thing;  for  George  Eliot  well 
defines  gossip  to  be  '  a  sort  of  smoke  which  comes 
from  the  dirty  tobacco-pij^es  of  those  who  diffuse 
it,'  and  remarks  that  it  proves  nothing  but  the  bad 
taste  of  the  smoker,"  I  added. 

1  Somes  V.  British  Emp.  Sh.  Co.  8  H.  L.  Cas.  338;  El.  B.  &E. 
353.    But  see,  in  cases  of  horses,  p.  12!), 

2  Clayton  v.  Butterfield,  10  Rich.  423. 


WIIAT  IS  A   UEN? 


151 


Tlie  ladies  scomcr]  conscience-stricken,  for  neitlier 
replied,  and  for  some  time  we  all  sat  in  silence,  en- 
joying the  delicious  coolness  of  eventide;  each  was 
busied  in  i)rivate  castle-buildini',  or  "  watcliiiiLT  out 
the  light  of  sunset,  ;ind  the  o])ening  of  that  bead- 
roll  which  some  oriental  poet  describes  as  God's 
call  to  the  little  stars,  who  each  answer,  *  Ileio 
amll»" 


r ., 


m 


: 


y 


14 


CUAPTER   IX. 
DUTIES  OF  A  BOAEDING-IIOUSE  KEEPER. 

Suns  li.id  risen  and  set ;  moons  liiul  waxed  and 
waned,  and  Mrs.  Lawyer  and  myself  were  now 
settled  in  a  boarding-house.  I  will  not  say  com- 
fortably, fo.',  aUhough  never  in  my  youth  did  I 
own  a  little  hatchet,  still  I  have  read  in  my  younger 
days  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Ai)ostlcs. 

My  powers  of  description  are  exceedingly  limited, 
so  I  will  not  attempt  to  sketch,  for  the  benefit  of 
my  readers,  either  the  house  itself,  its  furnishings, 
its  occuj>ants,  or  the  entertainment  provided  as  a 
quid j^ro  their  dollars.  Of  the  furniture,  I  will  only 
say  that  the  carpet  on  the  parlor  floor  "  wms  bediz- 
ened like  a  Kicaree  Indian — all  red  chalk,  yellow 
ochre,  and  cock's  feathers."  Of  our  fellow  boarders, 
'tis  sufiicient  to  remark  that  some,  on  one  or  two 
occasions,  had,  perhaps,  worn  kiil  gloves ;  most  of 
the  men  were  "self-made,  whittled  into  shape  with 
their  own  j;ick-knives";  the  ladies — but  de  feminls 
nil  nisi  boaum. 

Of  the  food  i)rovided  for  the  inner  man,  need 
more  be  said  than  that  the  poultry,  which  appeared 
on  the  second  day  of  our  sojuurn,  would  have  seemed 
to  Mr.  Bagnet's  fastidious  eye,  suitable  for  Mrs.  B.'s 
birthday  dinner?  If  there  be  any  truth  in  adages, 
they  certainly  were  not  canght  by  chaff.  Every 
kind  of  finer  tendon  and  ligament  that  it  is  in  the 

C152J 


DUTIES   OF  A   BOAIIDIXG-IIOUSE    KEEPER. 


153 


of 


ed 
ed 
led 


ry 
he 


nature  of  poultry  to  possess,  was  developed  in 
these  speeinicns  in  the  singular  form  of  guitar 
strings.  Their  limbs  api)eared  to  have  struck 
roots  into  their  breasts  and  bodies,  as  aged  trees 
strike  roots  into  the  eartli.  Their  legs  were  so 
liard  as  to  encourage  the  idea  that  they  must  have 
devoted  the  greater  part  of  their  long  and  arduous 
lives  to  pedestrian  exercises  and  the  walking  of 
matches.  No  one  could  have  cleaned  the  drum- 
tticks  without  being  of  ostrich  descent." 

Ab  lino  dlsce  oniaes.  l^Jjii jyede  ILrculcm.  From 
these  three  hints  let  eacli  one,  for  himself,  erect 
images  of  our  boarding-house,  our  fellow-boarders, 
and  our  meals,  as  a  Cuvier  wouhl  reconstruct  a  me- 
gatherium from  a  tooth,  or  an  Agassiz  draw  a  pic- 
ture of  an  unknown  lish  from  a  single  scale.  But 
I  must  not  dip  my  pen  in  vinegar,  nor  tip  it  with 
wormwood,  when  I  write  of  boardinij:-houses  and 
their  industrious  and  unfortunate  keepers.  These 
providers  of  food  and  lodging  seem  to  be  the  de- 
scendants of  Ishmael,  their  liand  beini;  asjrainst 
every  one  to  eke  out  their  little  proiits,  and  every 
one's  hand  being  against  them.  Let  me  be  an 
honorable  exception  to  the  general  rule,  and  act 
like  the  Good  Samaritan,  although,  by  the  way,  tliat 
worthy  patronized  a  chea])  hotel,  not  a  boarding- 
house. 

#  #  •  #  • 

It  has  ever  been  a  hobby  ot  mine  that  a  door — 
hall  or  otherwise — is  intended  to  be  shut  (if  not,  a 
bole  in  the  wall  would  answer  every  purpose  and 
be  cheaper).     Well,  one  great  source  of   trouble 


154 


DUTIES  OP  A  BOARDING-HOUSE    KEEPEB. 


!  ? 


;  ( 


i 


i 


with  mc  at  IMaflamo  Dee's  private  board ing-h on se 
was  that  the  clomestic-of-all-work  was  in  the  con- 
stant Iiabit  of  leaving  the  hall  door  ajar  whenever 
she  made  her  exit  on  to  the  street  in  lier  hnnt  for 
bntter,  eggs,  or  milk.  A  fellow-boarder,  seeing  my 
anxiety  on  this  2K)int,  asked  me  if  I  was  afraid  of 
some  one  stealing  Mrs.  Lawyer. 

"  No,"  I  replied,  "  I  am  more  afraid  of  my  over- 
coat. Althongh  not  very  new,  it  is  still  servicea- 
ble." 

"  Well,  sir,"  said  a  youthful  reader  of  Blackstone 
and  Story,  "  if  any  one  feloniously  and  wickedly 
takes  away  your  bad  habit  could  you  not  deduct 
the  value  of  it  on  your  next  week's  settlement  with 
Mrs.  Dee?  An  innkeeper  would  be  liable  in  such 
a  case." 

"My  dear  young  friend,"  I  replied,  "you  have 
as  yet  acquired  only  the  A  1>  C  of  professional 
knowledge.  Tiie  liability  of  a  boarding -house 
keeper  for  the  goods  of  a  boarder  is  by  no  means 
the  same  as  that  of  an  innkeeper." 

Here  I  paused,  but  the  first  speaker  asked  me 
to  i)roceed  and  explain  the  difference,  so  I  spako 
fiomewhat  as  follows: 

"  Once  upon  a  time  Catherine  Dansey  went  to 
the  boarding-house  of  Elizabeth  F.  Kichardson 
with  her  luggage,  and  was  duly  received  within 
the  mansion.  One  day  some  of  Mrs.  Danscy's 
goods,  chattels,  or  knick-knacks  were  stolen,  and 
when  the  matter  was  investigated  it  appeared  that 
the  thief  had  entered  through  the  front  door — 
which  had  been  left  open  by  the  servant — and  that 


DUTIES   OF  A  BOARDING-nOUSE    KEEPER. 


155 


Mrs.  Ricri.'irdson  hncw  tliat  her  Ci(l<ly  was  in  the 
constant  liabit  of  ne^lectincc  to  shut  tlio  door. 
Mrs.  K.  would  not  sottlo  the  affair  amicably,  so 
Mrs.  D.  liad  the  law  of  her.^  At  the  trial  the  judge 
told  the  jury  that  a  boarding-house  keeper  was 
bound  to  take  due  and  reasonable  care  about  the 
safe-keeping  of  a  guest's  goods ;  and  then,  it  hav- 
ing struck  his  lordship  that  perliaps  his  twelve 
enlightened  eountrynieu,  A\ho  sat  before  liiin  in  the 
box,  did  not  know  too  well  what  due  care  niiglit 
be,  he  proceeded  to  explain  to  them  that  it  was  such 
care  as  a  prudent  housekeeper  would  take  in  the 
management  of  his  own  liouse  for  the  protection  of 
liis  own  goods.  The  judge  went  on  to  say  that 
Mrs.  Richardson's  servant  leaving  the  door  open 
might  be  a  want  of  sucli  care,  but  the  mistress  was 
not  answerable  for  such  negligence,  unless  she  lier- 
8clf  had  been  guilty  of  some  neglect  (as  in  keeping 
such  a  servant  with  a  knowledge  of  her  habits). 
The  jury,  as  in  duty  bound,  took  the  law  from  his 
lordship  and  said  that  Dame  R.  was  not  liable." 

"Then  Mrs.  Dansey  had  to  perform  to  the  tune 
of  a  nice  little  bill  of  costs,  .and  grin  and  bear  it," 
remarked  the  embrvo  Coke. 

"  Slie  was  ratlier  stubborn  about  it,  and  applied 
for  a  new  trial 


?? 


(( 


Did  she  get  it?"  asked  Coke  in  ficturo. 

"No.     Tlie  wliole  four  judges  gave  it  as  their 

opinion  that  a  boarding-house  keeper  is  not  bound 

to  keep  a  guest's  baggage  safely  to  the  same  extent 

as  an  innkeeper,  but  that  the  law  imi)lies  an  under- 

1  Dansey  v.  rticliardson,  3  Kl.  &  lU.  144. 


9^^" 


150 


DUTIES  OF  A  BOARDING-nOUSE    KEEPER. 


taking  on  his  part  to  tal:e  duo  and  proper  care  of 
the  boarder's  belonGriniis,  akhouizih  notliinur  was  said 
about  it;  and  that  nei^lecting  to  take  due  care  of 
an  outer  door  might  be  a  breach  of  such  duty." 

"]]ut  did  tiiey  say  what  due  and  proper  care 
amounted  to?"  was  queried. 

"Yes;  but,  as  doctors  often  do,  they  disagreed 
on  the  point.  Judge  Wightman  coukl  not  see  that 
a  boarding-house  keeper  is  a  bailee  of  the  goods  of 
his  guest  at  all,  or  that  he  is  bound  to  take  more 
care  of  them  (when  they  are  no  further  given  into 
his  care  than  by  being  in  his  house)  than  lie  as  a 
prudent  man  would  take  of  his  own.  If  he  were 
guilty  of  negligence  in  tlie  selection  of  his  servants, 
or  in  keeping  such  as  lie  might  well  distrust,  his 
lordship  said  that  he  could  hardly  be  considered  as 
taking  the  care  of  a  prudent  owner,  and  so  might 
be  liable  for  a  loss  occasioned  by  a  servant's  neg- 
lect. Erie,  J.,  said  that  as  there  was  no  delivery  of 
the  goods  by  JMrs.  D.  to  Mrs.  R.,  no  contract  to 
keep  them  with  care  and  deliver  them  again,  and 
nothing  i)aid  in  resj^ect  of  the  goods,  there  was  no 
duty  of  keeping  them  placed  upon  Richardson. 
Judge  Coleridge  and  Lord  Campbell  looked  at  the 
case  througl  spectacles  of  another  colo'*  —  the  for- 
mer said  that  a  guest  at  such  a  house  is  jntitled  to 
due  and  reasonable  care  absolutely ;  he  comes  to 
the  house  and  pays  his  money  for  certain  things  to 
be  rendered  in  return ;  he  stipulates  directly  with 
the  master,  having  no  control  himself  over  the  serv- 
ants, and  having  nothing  to  do  with  the  master's 
judiciousness  or  care  or  good  fortune  in  selecting 


DUTIES  OP  A  BOARDING-HOUSE    KEEPER. 


157 


ryof 
t  to 
and 
LS  no 
Ison. 
the 
for- 
d  to 
s  to 
js  to 
with 
erv- 
ter'a 
ting 


them;  and  the  master  undertakes  to  the  guest  not 
merely  to  be  careful  in  the  choice  of  his  servants, 
but  absolutely  to  t:ike  duo  and  reasonable  care  of 
his  goods.  Lord  Campbell  said  that  he  could  not 
go  so  f:ir  as  to  say  that  in  no  case  can  a  boarding- 
house  keeper  be  liable  for  the  loss  of  goods  tlirough 
the  negligence  of  a  servant,  although  he  himstlf 
was  guiltless  of  any  negligence  in  hiring  or  keejv 
ing  the  domestic.  If  one  employs  servants  to  keep 
the  outer  door  shut  when  there  is  danger  of  thieves, 
while  they  are  performing  that  duty  they  arc  acting 
within  the  scope  of  their  employment,  and  he  is 
answerable  for  their  negligence.  lie  is  not  answer- 
able for  the  consequences  of  a  felony,  or  even  a 
willful  trespass  committed  by  them ;  but  the  gen- 
eral rule  is,  that  the  master  is  responsible  for  the 
necclitjence  of  his  servants  while  cm'ai'ed  in  offices 
which  he  employs  them  to  do  —  and  his  lordship 
(for  I  have  been  quoting  liis  sentiments)  said  that 
he  was  not  aware  how  the  keeper  of  a  board- 
inghouse  could  be  an  exception  to  the  general 
rule." 

I  stopped  here,  and  was  rather  chagrined  to  catch 
one  of  those  present  saying  to  another  — 

"  Do  you  remember  what  old  Coates  said  about 
liis  wife  ?  " 

uKo  — what?" 

"  'M-Mrs.  C-Coates  is  a  f-funny  old  watch.  She 
b-broke  her  chain  a  <j-orood  while  ai]i:o,  and  has  bcxm 
r-running  down  ever  since  ;  she  must  have  a  main- 
spring a  mile  long.'  This  is  apropos  of  our  friend 
here  when  he  gets  started  on  a  legal  point." 

14. 


158 


DUTIE3  OP  A   BOARDING-nOUSE    KEEPER. 


I! 


BU: 


^1 


"And  lio  is  [ihvnys  startiiiGj  Bomo  fiucli  islioppy 
subject ;  like  Adelaido  Proctor's  young  man  — 

*  IIo  cracks  no  ogjj  without  a  ]i)^a\  sigh, 
Isor  cats  uf  beef  but  tbiuking  ou  the  Liw,'  " 

was  the  response  wafted  into  the  recesses  of  my 
auricular  appendages  —  so  chilling  it  was  that  I  in- 
continently sneezed  thrice. 

"There  seems,"  said  the  student,  "to  have  been 
a  decided  diversity  of  opinion  among  the  learned 
judges  in  that  case.'' 

"Yes,  indeed,"  I  replied.  "But  the  point  has 
been  made  clear  in  a  more  recent  case,  in  which  ;  11 
the  judges  took  the  same  view  of  the  extent  of  the 
liability." 

"  What  was  that  decision,  sir  ?  '* 

"  That  the  law  imposes  no  obligation  on  a  lodging- 
house  keeper  to  take  care  of  the  goods  of  his  boarder. 
A  lodger  who  was  just  about  to  change  his  quarters, 
was  out  of  his  room,  and  the  landlord  allowed 
a  stranger  to  enter  to  look  at  it ;  the  latter  carried 
off  some  of  the  boarder's  property,  and  when  the 
owner  sued  the  landlord  the  court  gave  him  to  un- 
derstand that  he  must  himself  bear  the  loss.  Earle, 
C.  J.,  said  that  the  judges  had  decided  that  even  if 
the  things  had  been  stolen  by  a  member  of  the 
household  the  proprietor  would  not  be  liable,  lie 
went  on  to  remark  that  he  was  most  particularly 
averse  to  affirming,  for  the  first  time,  that  a  lodging- 
house  keeper  has  the  duty  cast  upon  him  of  takinj 
care  of  his  guest's  goods  ;  he  saw  great  difficultiea 


1  Holder  v.  Soulby.  8  C.  B.  N.  S.  254. 


DUTIES  OF  A  BOAKDING-HOUSE   KEKPER. 


150 


in  so  holding,  and  thought  it  would  be  casting  upon 
him  an  undefined  responsibility  whieh  would  be 
most  inconvenient;  considering  that  lodgers  con- 
sist of  all  classes — from  the  hiixhest  to  the  lowest — 
one  could  hardly  exaggerate  the  mischief  that  would 
ensue  from  holding  the  proprietor  liable.  It  would 
be  impossible,  his  lordship  continued,  to  lay  down 
any  definite  test  of  liability;  each  case  must  be  left 
to  the  discretion  or  caprice  of  a  jury;  the  liability 
of  the  keeper  of  the  house  must  vary  according  to 
the  situation  of  the  premises  and  a  variety  of  cir- 
cumstances too  numerous  to  mention.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  law  is  that  the  lodger  must  take 
care  of  his  own  goods,  it  only  imposes  upon  him  the 
same  care  which  he  is  bound  to  take  when  he  walks 
the  streets  ;  he  may  always  secure  his  valuables  by 
carrying  them  about  with  him,  or  by  placing  them 
six^cially  in  the  custody  of  the  keeper  of  the  Jiouse." 

"  But  it  appears  rather  hard  to  compel  a  man  to 
carry  his  goods  about  with  him  wherever  he  goes, 
or  else  hand  them  over  to  the  boarding-house  keeper 
who  mi2;ht  be  down  in  the  kitchen  cookiui^  dinner 
or  washing  cups  and  saucers ;  besides,  she  or  he 
might  refuse  to  take  care  of  them,"  captiously  re- 
marked one  of  the  company. 

"  Notwithstanding  all  that,  I  have  told  you  tho 
law  correctly,  and  Byles,  J.,  remarked  once  that  a 
contrary  decision  would  cast  upon  the  proprietor 
'  a  frightful  amount  of  liability,'"  I  replied. 

"Did  the  judges  in  the  ca>e  you  just  referred  to 
say  anything  about  the  o^jen  door  case  ? "  ques- 
tioned the  earnest  inquirer  after  knowledge. 


i       1 


IGO 


DUTIES   OF  A  BOARDING-nOUSE    KEEPER. 


=    '• 


!!  y 


I  I 


"Yes,  and  held  that  the  wliolc  tenor  of  the  judg- 
ment in  it  was  tliat  a  hoarding-house  keeper  is  not 
bound  to  take  sueli  reasonable  degree  of  care  of  the 
goods  of  his  guest  as  a  i)rudent  man  may  reason- 
ably be  expected  to  take  of  his  own." 

"It  seems  strange,"  urged  the  youtli — by  the  way, 
a  careless,  lieedless  young  fellow  was  Im — "  tliat 
such  people  should  in  no  way  be  liable  to  look  after 
the  property  of  their  boarders." 

"  I  did  not  say  exactly  that.  Tliey  are  of  course 
liable  where  a  loss  of  a  lodger's  goods  has  resulted 
from  gross  negligence  on  their  })art,  or  they  theui- 
Belves  have  been  guilty  of  some  misdeed."  ^ 

"  Those  two  cases,  I  think,"  said  one  Avho  had 
been  a  silent  listener  hitherto,  "  were  both  decided 
in  England  ;  but  what  say  our  American  judges  ou 
the  point  ?  " 

"  So  far  as  they  have  spoken,"  I  replied,  "  they 
have,  as  a  rule,  corroborated  and  agreed  with  the 
sentiments  of  their  ermined  and  bewiuri^ed  fellows 
across  the  ocean.  The  Sui)reme  Court  of  Tennessee 
decided  that  an  innkeeper  was  not  liable  for  the 
clothing  of  a  boarder  stolen  from  his  room,  without 
the  former's  fault,  although  he  would  be  for  that  of 
a  guest ;  2  and  the  judge  gave  as  his  i-eason  for 
making  the  distinction  that  a  passenger  or  way- 
faring man  may  be  an  entire  stranger  in  the  i)lace, 
and  must  put  n[)  and  lodge  at  the  inn  to  wliich  his 
day's  journey  may  bring  him,  and  so  it  is  important 
that  he  should  be  i)rotected  by  the  most  stringent 


1  Idem— Earle,  C.  J. 

2  Mauuing  r.  Wells,  9  Ilumpli.  74G. 


DUTIEi   OP  A   BOABDIN'O-UOUcJE    KEEPER. 


IGl 


rules  of  law  enforcing  tlie  liability  of  hotel-koopcrs; 
but  as  a  boarder  does  not  need  sueli  })n)t('('ti()n  iho 
law  does  not  afford  it,  and  it  is  sufficient  to  give  him 
a  remedy  when  ho  proves  tlie  innkeeper  guilty  of 
culpable  neglect.  And  in  Kentucky,  where  a  regu- 
lar boarder  at  an  hotel  deposited  gold  willi  the  j)ro- 
prietor,  who  put  it  in  his  safe,  into  wliich  lliieves 
broke  and  stole,  the  court  held  tliat  tlie  hotel- 
keeper  was  not  liable  as  an  innkeeper,  but  only  as  n, 
depositary  without  reward,  and  as  no  gro>-s  negli- 
gence was  shown  the  poor  boarder  failed  in  liis  at- 
tempt to  recover  his  lost  casli  in  tliat  wny.^  I  liad 
better  tell  you,  however,  that  in  New  York  it  lias 
very  recently  been  held  that  a  boarding-house 
keeper  is  liable  for  the  loss  of  a  boarder's  property 
by  theft,  committea  by  a  stranger  allowed  to  enter 
the  boarder's  room  by  a  servant  of  the  house,-  and 
that  it  is  his  duty  to  exercise  such  care  over  a  board- 
er's goods  as  a  prudent  man  would  over  his  own." 

"  Well,  will  you  please  tell  me  what  is  the  differ- 
ence between  a  boarding-house  and  an  inn  ?  "  asked 
one  of  the  other  boarders. 

"  It  would  afford  me  great  pleasure  to  answer 
your  question  at  another  time,  but  at  the  i)resent  I 
uri  sorry  to  say  that  duty  calls  me  an<l  I  must  go." 

Leaving  my  listeners  to  digest  the  law  lecture  I 
had  delivered  to  them,  I  repaired  to  the  best  jiar- 
lov,  and  there  found  Mrs.  Lawyer  and  another  lady 
in  a  state  of  white  heat  over  the  performances  of  a 


1  Johnson  v.  Pteynolds,  .3  Ken.  '2o7     See,  also,  Chamberlain 
V.  Mast(!rsou,  -0  Ala.  071. 

2  Smirb.  V.  rweed,  G  Daly,  33. 


1C2 


DUTIES  OP  A   BOAllDING-nOUSB    KEEPEB. 


I    ^ 


i 


!   2} 


I.     i 

t  ■ 

1 

r 

! 

i 

■ 

: 

1 

1 

I 

1 

1 

i 

"'■'           Hi 

lMI 

u. 

boarder  who  occupied  the  next  room — one  of  tho 
genus  referred  to  by  Coleridge  when  he  suid, 

"  Swans  alu^  hoforo  tlioy  dio  ;  'tworo  no  had  thing 
Should  certain  persona  dio  before  tlicy  sing  " — 

wlio  was  constantly  carolling  or  trilling  with  a 
voice  of  the  most  rasping  kind,  or  playing  upon  a 
most  atrocious  accordeon,  to  the  discomfiture  and 
annoyance  of  the  other  guests. 

"Can  tliat  man  not  bo  made  to  keep  quiet?" 
asked  my  wife. 

"  Doubtless,  my  dear,  if  you  would  go  and  talk 
to  him  nvveetly,  he  would  cease  his  songs  and  lay 
aside  his  wind  instrument,"  I  gallantly  replied. 

"  Don't  tease  me,"  she  said.  "  Here  we  both  have 
got  sj^litting  headaches  through  that  horrid  noise." 

"  I  thought  from  your  manner  you  seemed  a  lit- 
tle cracked,  my  love ;  what  can  I  do?"  I  (pieried. 

"You  ought  to  know — you  are  a  lawyer;  can't 
you  make  him  stop?" 

"  Well,  really  I  don't  know.  I  remember  that  in 
England  a  man  had  the  constant  ringing  of  a  chime 
of  bells  in  a  neighboring  chapel  stopped  on  account 
of  the  annoyance  and  discomfort  it  caused  him."  i 

"I  am  sure  that  the  noise  of  bells  is  as  heavenly 
music  compared  to  the  infernal  discords  i)roduced 
by  that  man,"  remarked  the  other  hidy,  who,  like 
Talmage's  friend.  Miss  Stinger,  was  sharp  as  a 
hornet,  prided  herself  on  saying  things  that  cut, 
could  not  bear  the  sight  of  a  pair  of  pants,  loathed 
a  shaving  a])paratus,  and  thought  Eve  would  havo 

1  Soltan  V.  De  Held,  2  Sim.  N.  S.  13a 


DUTIES  OF  A  BOAfiOINQ-UOUSC   KEEPKB. 


1C3 


shown  a  better  capacity  for  housekeeping  if  she 
liad — the  first  time  hHc  used  her  broom — swept 
Adam  out  of  Paradise. 

"  Yes,  dear  inadain,  the  noise  of  belles  is  often 
most  delightful ;  and  the  happiest  day  of  my  life 
was  the  one  on  which  1  was  encraijcd  in  rincjjiuLr  a 
sweet  village  belle,  who  shall  be  nameless,"  I  re- 
plied,  knowing  that  the  lady  hated  everything  likj 
gallantry,  and  I  politely  waved  my  hand  towards 
Mrs.  L.,  who  exclaimed  : 

"You  stupid,  you!  Tell  me  directly  what  wc 
can  do ! " 

"  In  the  English  case  I  mentioned,  the  man  got 
an  injunction  from  the  Court  of  Chancery  to  re- 
strain the  noise;  but  in  another  case  in  North  Car- 
olina,^ where  a  most  pious  member  of  a  Methodist 
church  was  indicted  for  disturbing  divine  service 
by  singing  in  such  a  way  that  one  part  of  the  con- 
gregation laughed,  and  the  other  i:)art  got  mad — • 
the  irreligious  and  frivolous  enjoyed  it  as  fun, 
"while  the  serious  and  devout  were  indii^nant — al- 
though  the  jury  found  the  man  guilty,  the  court 
reversed  the  verdict,  as  the  brother  did  not  desire 
to  disturb  the  worship  but  was  religiously  doing 
his  best.  So  here  our  i)Oor  neighbor  is  doing  what 
he  can  to  produce  a  '  concord  of  sweet  sounds.'  On 
another  occasion,  the  judges  in  the  same  State  held 
that  the  noise  of  a  drum  or  life  in  a  procession  was 
not  a  nuisanco.2  But  then  the  wearers  of  the  er- 
mine in  that  State  seem  almost  indifferent  to  sounds 


1  State  V.  Liukbam,  G'J  N.  C.  214. 

2  State  V.  Hughes,  73  N.  C.  23. 


1    * 


i  I 


1G4 


DUTIES   OF  A   BOAJlDING-UOUSIi    KEEPER. 


of  any  kind  ;  for  about  the  sanic  time,  tliey  deeided 
that  j)rofane  swearing  was  not  a  niiisanee,  unless  it 
was  loud  and  lonu:  eontinued."i 

"What  had  we  better  do?"  persisted  Mrs.  Law- 
yer. "  Either  lie  must  leave,  or  we  must  bid  good- 
bye to  these  premises.'' 

"  Get  the  landlady  to  give  him  notice  to  quit ; 
then  if  he  won't  go  peaceably,  she  can  bundle  him 
out  neck  and  crop."^ 

"  !She  will  i)romise  to  do  so,  and  that  will  be  tho 
end  of  it,  '  said  the  acidulous  lady. 

'•  In  iSIassachusetts,  where  a  lodger  was  disturbed 
by  the  lodger  in  the  room  below  singing  hymns  by 
no  means  of  the  Moody  &  Sankey  style,  and  tho 
landlord  jiromised  to  get  the  musician  out,  but 
failed  to  do  so,  the  Supreme  Court  held  tluit  the 
aggrieved  boarder  could  not  insist  u})on  a  diminU' 
tion  of  his  weekly  bills  on  account  of  the  disagree- 
able singing.3  But,  my  dear,  will  you  come  and 
take  a,  walk  with  me?" 


Olf    we    started  countrywards,    and walked. 

When  we   were  returiiin<jf,  it  was  dark  and   late. 


''  The  night  air  was  soft  and  balmy ;  the  night  odors 
sweet  and  soul-entrancing  ;  there  were  no  listeners 
save  the  grasshoi)i)ers  and  the  night-moths  with 
folded  wiuij^s  amouir  the  llower-beds  of  the  cottaijes, 
and  no  on-lookers  save  the  silent  stars  and  jewxded- 
eyed  frogs  ui)on  the  i)ath  staring  at  us  "  with  all 
their  might  and  main.     So  we  gossiped  until  we 

1  State  V.  Powell,  70  N.  C.  G7. 

2  Newton  v.  lIiiriuiKl,  I  M.  &  G.  G44. 
8  De  Witt  r.  ricrsou,  112  Mass  8. 


DUTIE.4   OF  A   BOARDING-IlOUSn    KUIIPER. 


1G5 


tiiul 


entered  the*  city  once  asjain,  ami  then  tlic  odors 
changed  ;  listeners  and  lookers-on  hecanie  nnnier- 
ous ;  the  stars  were  eclipsed  hy  llaming  g.'is ;  the 
frogs  gave  jilaco  to  gaping  gamins. 

--K>  #  #  *  *  # 

As  it  li.'is  to  he  mentioned,  and  there  is  no  reason 
>vhy  it  should  not  be  mentioned  just  here,  I  may 
state  (as  a  hint  to  those  who  keep  hoarders)  that 
Judge  Coleridge  once  remarked  that  it"  a  l)oarding- 
liouse  keeper  neglected  to  give  a  boarder  a  dry  bed 
or  "wholesome  food,  and  in  consecpienee  thereof  the 
latter  became  sick,  it  could  not  be  doubted  but  that 
the  landlord  nught  be  compelled  to  make  compen. 
sation  in  damages  to  the  sufferer.  His  lordship 
also  went  on  to  say,  in  effect,  that  if  the  White 
Ilart  Inn,  Iligh-street,  Borough,  bad  been  a  board- 
ing-house, and  Sam  Weller  had  given  the  wooden 
leg  of  nund)er  six  to  thirteen,  and  the  pair  of  Hes- 
sians of  thirteen  to  number  six ;  or  the  two  i)airs 
of  halves  of  the  commercial  to  the  snuggery  inside 
the  bar,  and  the  painted  tops  of  the  snuggery  to 
the  connnercial,  so  that  any  of  tliosc  worthies  had 
been  damnified,  then  the  bustling  old  landlady  of 
that  establishment  would  have  had  to  comfort  her 
guests  in  a  more  substantial  manner  than  she  did 
when  she  titillated  the  nose  of  the  spinster  aunt.^ 


i  ; 


iDans'^v  V.  rJcbardson,  3  El.  &  13.  144. 


Chapter  X. 


MORE  Ar.OUT  BOARDIXG-IIOUSE  KEEPERS. 


w 


'.»:! 


;* 


AGr.'iin  it  was  iiiLjlit.  All  the  boarders  wore  fis^ 
soniblcd  around  llio  tea-table ;  not  exactly,  liowcver, 
as  Dr.  Talinago  would  Avlsb,  for  he  said  that  you 
should  be  seated  wide  enough  apart  to  liavc  room 
to  take  out  your  handkerchief  if  you  want  to  cry 
at  any  i)itiful  sto^y,  or  to  spread  yourself  in  laugli-^ 
terif  someone  propound  an  irresistible  conun(b*um. 

The  tea  was  none  of  that  good  old  stuff  that 
once  brought  850  a  pound,  but  some  of  the  adub 
terated  mixture,  thirty  million  pounds  of  which 
Uncle  Sam,  Aunt  Columbia  and  their  little  ones, 
pour  annually  into  their  saucers  and  empty  into 
their  mouths. 

"  N"ow,  then,  Mr.  Lawyer,"  said  iny  friend  Mr. 
Jim  Crax,  as  the  bread  and  butter,  tea  and  toast 
were  fast  disa]ipearing  off  the  table  on  to  the  cliairs, 
"kindly  redeem  your  promise,  and  tell  us  the  differ- 
ence between  a  boarding-house  keeper  and  an  ho- 
tel-keeper; that  is,  the  difference  in  law — we  all 
know  the  practical  differences  only  too  well." 

After  a  preliminary  hem  and  haw,  I  began  as 
follows:  "It  miii-lit  be  as  well  to  sav,  in  thf»  first 
l)lace,  that  a  bonrding-liouse  is  not  in  common  par- 
lance, or  in  legal  meaning,  every  j^rivate  house 
where  one  or  n^ore  boarders  arc  occasionally  kept 
upon  special  considerations;   but  is  a  </«rt5/-])ublio 

C106  3 


MORE  ABOUT  BOARDING-nOUSE    KLIEPERS. 


1G7 


liousc,  wlicre  boarders  arc  generally  and  habit- 
ually received  as  a  matter  of  business,  and  which 
is  held  out  to  the  public  and  known  as  a  ])lace 
of  entertainment  of  that  kin<l.l  The  chief  dis- 
tinction between  a  boardinfj^-house  and  an  inn,  and 
the  one  from  which  all  others  naturally  Ihjw,  is 
that  the  keeper  of  a  boarding-house  can  cho(^se  his 
own  guests,  admitting  some  and  i*eje<'ting  others,  as 
to  him  in  his  discretion  or  accordiuLf  to  his  whims 
and  luunors  m;iy  seem  best;  while  an  innke('[)er  is 
obliged  to  entertain  all  travelers  of  good  conduct, 
and  i)Ossessed  of  means  of  ]>ayment,  who  choose 
to  stop  at  his  house,  and  those  wlio  do  stay  he  must 
provide  with  all  they  have  occasion  for  while  on 
their  way."  - 

"That  seems  ratlicr  hard  on  the  innkeeper." 
"  No:  lie  is  compensated  by  having  greater  priv- 
ileges tluin  his  hundjler  brotlier ;  and  sncli  a  rule  ii 
necessary  for  the  welfare  and  convenience  of  the 
traveling  public,  who  cannot  be  exi)ected,  in  the 
hurry  of  journeyings,  to  stop  and  liunt  through  a 
town  for  a  night's  lodging,  making  a  special  bargain 
with  the  keeper  of  the  house.  A  lodging-houso 
keeper  makes  a  special  contract  with  every  man 
that  comes  to  him,  whereas  an  innkeeper  is  bound, 
without  any  particular  agreement,  to  provide  lodg' 
ing  and  entertainment  for  all  who  come  to  him,  at 
a  reasonable  price.^  In  the  one  case  the  guest  is 
entertained  on  an  implied  contract  from  day  to  day; 


iCndy  r.  McDowell.  1  Lans.  (\.  V.)  484. 
"ruikcrtou  r.  'NVoiHlwanl,  ;'.;i('al.  Tm;. 
aXhompsuu  v.  Lacy,  .".  Dam.  c^  Adol.  283 


'I 


II 


H: 


'  ti 


:ii 


ii' 


i 


i 

if' 


1G3 


MOllE  ABOUT  BOAllDING-nOUSE    KEIiPEUS. 


in  llic  otluT,  tliorc  is  an  express  contract  for  a  cer- 
tain time  at  a  certain  rate."  l 

"Bnt  snrely,"  said  Jim  Crax,  "oftentimes  a  defi- 
nite ai^reenient  to  board  is  made  witli  an  hotel- 
keeper." 

'"  Of  course,  I  know  tliat,"  I  rcpli.>d.  "  But,  tlien, 
if  lie  does  so  on  tlie  arrival  of  liis  guest  lie  loses 
the  rights  and  })i-ivileges  as  well  as  the  liabilities  of 
his  order;  althongh  an  arrangement  as  to  the  price 
only,  after  one  has  become  a  guest,  will  not  have 
that  effect.2  And  it  has  been  held  tliat  a  public 
hotel  at  a  watering  jdace  possessing  medicinal 
S})rings,  and  opened  only  during  the  summer  and 
fall  f(»r  the  accommodation  of  visitors  in  search  of 
health  .and  j)leasure,  is,  in  fact,  only  a  bonrding- 
hous(^,  the  visitors  not  being  guests  for  a  d.'iy,  night, 
or  week, but  lod-jcrs  or  boarders  for  a  season."*^ 

"  Wliat,"  said  the  landladv's  dautrhter,  who  was 
anixlimr  for  the  vouno^  law  htudent  and  so  tried 
to  season  her  generally  frivolou-^  conversation  with 
an  occasional  semi-sensible  remark  <»r  question, 
"What  are  the  pri\jleges  of  an  innkeeper  which  a 
boarding-lioiise  keeper  does  not  enjoy?  The  right 
to  charge  $5  per  day  ?  " 

••'  Their  right  of  lien.  You,  of  course,  know  what 
that  is?"  I  replied. 

"Oh,  certainly,"  she  answered,  though  she  no 
more  knew  what  it  meant  than  I  do  the  hiero- 
glyphics on  Cleopatra's  Needle. 

1  Willanl  V.  Reinh:irclt,  2  E.  D.  Smith,  148. 
-  Wliarton  on  Innkeepers,  123. 

31>euner  v.  Welburn,  7  Ga.  2t)G,  307;  Soutliwood  f .  Myers, 
3  IjUsIi,  G81. 


T  a,  cer- 

=>  a  defl- 
i   liott'l- 

it,  then, 

10  loses 

lities  of 

lie  price 

ot  have 

I  public 

ediciiial 

ncr  and 

earch  of 

onrding- 

y,  night, 
"a 

ho  was 
o  tried 
)n  with 
iL'jrtion, 
which  a 
10  right 

w  what 

she  no 
hiero- 


ai 


MORE  ABOUT   JiOAUDING-nOU.SE    KliErEllS. 


100 


"I  don't,"  said  a  ladv  with  cjreater  lionestv. 
"But  i)ray,  don't  attempt  to  deiino  it.  I  never  try 
to  find  out  the  meaning  of  a  word  since  I  once 
lookoil  in  Johnson's  dictionary  and  found  that  net- 
work was  'anythiii!'  reticulated  or  decussated  with 
interstices  between  the  intersections.'  " 

"I  thought  that  the  proprietor  of  a  boarding- 
house  also  had  the  right  of  detaining  the  goods  of 
their  lod'jrcrs  for  their  charGjes,"  remarked  the  seed- 
iest  of  tlie  company  who  looked  as  if  he  had  had 
practical  experience  in  such  matters. 

"Not  generally;  although  in  some  States  the 
legislatures  have  conferred  the  right  upon  them  to 
the  same  extent  as  an  innkeeper  has  at  common 
Liw.  This  they  liave,  for  instance,  in  New  York, 
New  IIam})shire,  and  Wisconsin  ;i  and  in  Connec- 
ticut they  have  not  only  the  right  to  retain  the 
property  until  the  debt  is  paid,  but  in  case  of  non- 
payment they  can  sell  it  to  recouj)  themselves  after 
a  certain  time." 2 

"  Suppose,"  said  the  student,  "  as  is  the  case  here, 
one  who  keeps  boarders  occasionally  entertains 
travelers  for  a  night  or  so — would  she  be  considered 
an  hotel-keeper  in  respect  to  those  stray  sheep?" 

"No,"  I  replied. 

"IIow  would  it  be  if  a  man  agreed  to  go  to  a 
board incc-ho use  and  then  backetl  out  and  went  else- 
where?"  asked  my  vis-a-vis  at  the  table. 


•^11 


'fl 


■I; 


Myers, 


1  Stewart  v.  iMcCready,  24  IIow.  Pr.  G2;  Jones  v.  IMerrill,  42 
Barb.  G23;  Cross  u.  AVilkius,  4li  N.  II.  oU2;  Nichols  v.  lloUi- 
day,  21)  Vis.  40(5. 

iJ  Brooks  V.  Harrison,  41  Conn.  184. 


15. 


w 


11 


if  i 

h  'I 


■  il-i 


i< 


li! 


!     I 


170 


MORE   ABOUT   BOARDING-HOUSE    KEEPERS. 


c; 


Well,  where  a  man  of  the  name  of  Stewart 
accreed  by  word  of  mouth  with  one  who  took  hoard- 
ers  to  pay  £100  a  year  for  the  board  and  lodging 
of  himself  and  servant  and  the  keep  of  his  horse, 
and  then  failed  to  take  up  his  rpiarters  at  the  Innise, 
the  eourt  considered  that  the  bargain  was  not  a 
contract  concerninu:  land  within  the  Statute  of 
Frauds  and  so  did  not  require  to  be  in  Avriting, 
and  that  Stewart  was  liable  to  pay  for  the  breach 
of  his  .agreement. "  1 

"What  is  that  in  front  of  you,  sir?"  was  queried 
of  me. 

"  Pork  chops,  apparently,"  I  replied.  "  Will  you 
take  one  ?  " 

"  No,  thanks  ;  I  am  a  Jew  as  far  as  pork  is  con- 
cerned. In  fact,  although  not  so  bad  as  Marshal 
d'Albert,  who  Avas  always  taken  ill  whenever  he 
saw  a  roast  sucking-})ig,  I  am  like  the  celebrated 
Guianerius — pork  always  gives  me  a  violent  palpi- 
tation of  the  heart." 

"  'Tis  curious  what  antipathies  some  peo])le  have 
to  particular  kinds  of  food.  I  have  read  of  a  man 
who  was  always  seized  with  a  fit  when  he  tried  to 
swallow  a  piece  of  meat,"  said  a  Mr.  Knowall. 

"  Nature  evidently  intended  him  for  a  vegeta- 
nan. 

"  I  have  heard  of  another  who  was  made  ill  if  he 
ever  ate  any  mutton,"  continued  the  gentleman  ; 
"and  of  a  man  w  lio  always  had  an  attack  of  the  y:out 
a  few  hours  after  eating  iish.  In  fact,  the  celebrated 
Erasmus  could  not  smell  fish  without  being  thrown 

1  Wright  V.  Stewart,  20  Law  J.  Q.  li.  iGl. 


MORE   ABOUT   BOARDIXG-UOUSK    Kr:::PERS. 


171 


•ied 


you 


ho 
;ited 

lave 
man 
(1  to 

^eta- 

if  he 
lan  ; 

;^OUt 

II  ted 
>wn 


into  a  fever;  Count  d'Annstadt  never  f;iile(l  to  <jo 
off  in  a  faint  if  lie  knowingly  or  unknowingly  j)ar- 
touk  of  any  dish  containing  the  slightest  inodieuni 
of  <dive  oil:  the  learned  8cali<_cer  would  shudder  in 
cveiy  limb  on  Ijeholding  WMter-eresses  ;  and  Vla- 
disiaus,  of  Poland,  would  lly  at  the  sight  of  ap- 
ples.' 

"I  read  once  of  a  ladv  who,  if  she  ventured  to 
taste  lobster  saLad  at  a  dancing  party,  would,  before 
she  couhl  return  to  the  ball-room,  be  covered  with 
iigly  blotches  and  her  peace  of  mind  destroyed  for 
that  evening,"  I  remarked. 

"  The  whole  question  of  food  is  an  interesting 
one,"  said  Mr.  Knowall. 

"Do  you  mean  with  regard  to  the  sumptuary 
laws  of  other  days?"  qneried  the  law  student. 

"Yes.  You  remember  that  in  the  davs  of  the 
Plantaojenets  the  Houses  of  Parliament  solemidv 
resolved  that  no  man,  of  wdiat  state  or  condition 
soever  he  might  be,  siiould  have  at  dinner  or  sup- 
])er,  or  any  other  time,  more  than  two  courses,  and 
each  of  two  sorts  of  victnal  at  the  utmost,  be  it  of 
flesh  or  fish,  with  the  common  sorts  of  potage, 
without  sauce  or  any  sort  of  victuals.  And  the 
eating  of  llesh  of  any  kind  during  Lent  and  on 
Fridays  and  Satmvlays,  was  punished  by  a  iiiu^  of 
ten  shillings,  or  imprisonment  for  ten  days  ;  ^  and 
in  the  days  of  Queen  Bess  the  fine  was  increased  to 
i!3  and  the  term  of  imprisonment  to  three  months; 
but  if  anv  one  had  three  dishes  of  sea-fish  on  his 
table  he  miii'ht  have  one  of  flesh  also."  ^ 


f.-'i 


1 2  uDd  ;;  Edw.  VI,  chap.  19.        25  £i\z,  diap.  5,  sec.  lo. 


■3  if  I 
'.Jiff  « 


:;•*; 


i 


172 


MORE  ABOUT  BOAEDING-nOUSE    KEEPERS. 


"  "Did  Elizabeth  do  this  from  any  religious  mo- 
tivc  ?  "  asked  a  young  divine. 

*'  Oil,  dear,  no.  The  statute  expressly  says  that 
the  eating  of  fish  is  not  necessary  for  the  saving  of 
the  soul  of  man.  In  the  days  of  bluff  old  King 
Hal,  Arclibishop  Cranmer  commanded  that  no  cler- 
gyman should  have  more  than  three  blackbirds  in  a 
pic  unless  he  was  a  bishop  and  then  he  might  have 
four,  but  he  allowed  himself  and  liis  brother  of 
York  to  have  six.'* 

"  When  then,  pray,  did  the  fashion  of  having 
*  four-and-twenty  blackbirds  baked  in  a  i)ic '  come 
into  vogue?"  asked  my  wife,  who  had  a  good 
memory  for  infantile  rhymes. 


m 

m 


Chapter  XL 


CHAPtMS  OF  FURNISHED  APART]VtENTS. 


*'2)e  gustlbus  non  est  disputandum ^''  was  origi- 
nally observed  by  Ji  in;in  of  sense,  however  many 
blockheads  may  since  have  repeated  it ;  and  as  my 
tastes  in  the  matter  of  comestibles  did  not  harmo- 
nize with  those  of  the  several  respectable  boarding- 
lumse  keej)ers  beneath  whose  roofs  we  successively 
took  shelter,  it  was  settled  in  a  committee  of  the 
whole  family  that  JMrs.  Lawyer  and  myself  should 
take  furnished  apartments  in  a  genteel  street,  or  a 
furnished  house — that  Mrs.  L.  should  be  appointed 
Commissary-General,  with  one  Bridget  or  Biddy 
O'Callaghan  as  Deputy-Act ing-xVss^istant  Commis- 
sary-General under  her,  while  I  should  continue  to 
hold  the  responsible  post  of  Paymaster-General  to 
the  entire  force. 

In  due  time,  after  a  considerable  reduction  in  our 
stock  of  the  virtue  of  patience  and  of  the  thickness 
of  the  soles  of  our  boots,  a  suitable  suite  of  rooms, 
furnished  in  a  style  agreeable  to  our  ta^te,  in  a  lo- 
cality not  objectionable  and  at  a  rate  proportionate 
to  the  depth  or  rather  shallowness  of  my  pocket,  was 
discovered  and  ;ill  necessary  ariangemenis  made 
with  the  landlord. 

To  avoid  a^l  possibility  of  future  disputations 
with  the  owner,  (and  especially  as  a  contract  to  let 
lodgings  is  a  contract  concerning  an  interest  in  land 

[173] 


I 


174 


fllAIlMS   OF   FURNISHED   ArARTMP^NTS. 


it.-,. 


14  «■ 


witliin  the  monnlnc^  of  that  celebrated  troublesome 
Btatute  passed  in  the  twcntv-uinth  vear  of  his  ras- 
cally  majesty,  Charles  II,  and  entitled  "an  aet  for 
the  prevention  of  frauds  and  |>erjurics,"  and  so  must 
be  in  writinu:,!)  I  determined  to  follow  the  good  ad- 
vice of  Mv.  Woodfall,  and  have  our  Jii^reement  re- 
duced to  black  and  white.  My  instructions  to  my 
clerk  in  i)re])aring  the  document  were,  to  specify 
the  amount  of  rent,  the  time  of  entry,  the  len^^th  of 
notice  to  quit  required  and  such  other  jjurticulars 
as  the  nature  of  the  case  rendered  requisite,  and  to 
have  a,  list  of  the  goods  and  chattels  in  the  aj)art- 
ments  ailixed. 

Alas,  1  found  the  truth  of  the  old  adage,  that  a 

lawver  who  acts  for  himself  has  a  well,  not  a 

Solomon  —  for  his  client.  An  unexpected  event, 
however,  saved  me.  The  very  evening  before  we 
were  to  enter  into  our  new  abode  a  bailiff,  on  be- 
half of  the  real  owner,  for  my  acquaintance  had 
but  a  lease  of  the  jJace,  visited  the  house  and 
seized  a  part  of  the  furniture  for  rent  overdue  ; 
luckily  none  of  my  personal  belongings  had  been 
taken  in — if  there  had  been  any  of  them  they,  too, 
would  have  been  liable  to  distress  for  the  rent.  I 
had  stupidly  neglected  to  inquire  whether  the  taxes 
or  the  rent  of  the  house  were  ])aid  u]),  and  whether 
they  were  likely  to  be  kept  so.^  Of  course  I  knew 
that  if  I  had  at  that  particular  period  of  my  exist- 
ence chanced  to  hav?  been  living  in  New  England, 


s    |.l 


.   t 


1  Woodfall,  Landlord  and  Tenant.  But  seo  Wright  r.  Stew- 
art, OJiir.  N.  S.  81  ;7. 

-  Woodfall,  Landlord  and  Tenant.  But  see  "Wright  v.  Stew- 
art, C)  Jur.  N.  S.  8G7. 


CHARM3  OP  FURNISHED   APARTMENTS. 


175 


or  ill  Nl'W  York  Stato,  or  in  some  of  the  other 
States  of  tlie  Union,  I  eonhl  not  Inive  been  trou1)le(l 
if  in  that  lionse,  as  the  power  of  distress  exists  in 
those  places  no  h)ntjjer;l  Init  M'e  were  in  a  State  in 
wliiclj  it  is  still  retained,  or  at  least  was  then. 

When  I  tohl  my  wife  of  the  narrow  escape  we 
had  had  she  asked  me  if  I  had  ever  made  incpiiiies 
as  to  whether  the  landlonls  of  the  hotels  at  which 
wc  stayed  were  in  arrcar  for  rent. 

"No,"  1  replied;  '•  the  rule  is  different  in  respect 
to  Iiotels." 

"Why?" 

"For  the  benefit  of  trade;  otherwise  Imsiness 
could  not  be  carried  on  at  all." 

"But  what  would  we  have  had  there  except  my 
cat  and  bird,  our  clothes,  and  your  books?"  nrged 
Mrs.  L. 

"Nothing  more  would  have  been  wanted." 

"Could  they  have  taken  our  clothes?  I  thought 
all  such  things  were  excMupt." 

"Generally  speaking,  they  are  from  seizure  for 
debt ;  but  not  from  distress  for  rent,  unless  they 
are  in  actual  use  at  the  time.  In  1700  Mr.  liavnes, 
who  had  furnished  lodgings  at  half  a  guinea  a  week, 
was  two  months  in  arrear,  and  a  bailiff  api)eared 
upon  the  scene  and  took  his  wearin;.'  api)arel  and 
that  of  Mrs.  B.,  although  i)art  of  it  was  actually  in 
the  wash-tub  at  the  time  ;  and  Lord  Kenyon  said  it 
was  all  riiiht.-^  The  same  lud'jfe  decided  in  another 
case  that  a  landlord  could  legally  take  the  clothes 


i  ''  I 

m 

k 

'J 
.11 


S      1 

i   ,5 


1  Parsons  on  Contracts,  vol,  1,  p.  517. 
213ayues  v.  Smitli,  1  Esx).  liOG. 


•  i 


170 


CUA1;M3  of  furnished  AlUULMliNTS. 


'I 


fif    ! 


w 


beluiighig  to  a  in.'in\s  wifo  aiul  cliildrcn,  while  they 
— tlie  'clotlies  screens,'  as  Carlyle  calls  tliein — not 
the  clothes — were  in  bed,  altlioui^h  the  bipeds  in- 
tended to  put  them  on  in  the  morning,  and  had  been 
daily  in  the  habit  of  wearing  them,  on  the  ground 
that  they  were  not  in  actual  use.^  Jjut  Kenyon,  my 
dear,  sometimes  said  absurd  things.  For  instance, 
once,  when  indignant  at  the  delay  of  an  attorney, 
Le  exchiimed,  wrathfully,  'This  is  tlie  last  hair  iu 
the  tail  of  procrastination.'" 

"The  law  seems  very  hard.  Why,  that  poor 
"woman  would  have  to  stay  in  bed.  But  talking  of 
tails,  could  they  have  taken  my  cat — my  beauti- 
ful i^ussy?"  said  Mrs.  Lawyer,  looking  over  where 

Tho  cat's  (lark  silhouette  on  the  wall, 
A  Goucliant  tiger's  seemed  to  fall. 

"  Well — ah — in  Coke  upon  Littleton  it  is  said, 
no;  but  the  reason  given  is  that  cats  are  things  in 
which  no  man  can  have  an  absolute  and  valuable 
i:)roperty;  and  that  reason  might  not  be  a[)plicablo 
to  tho  case  of  a  costly  Angora  like  yours,  and  you 
know,  ccssante  ratlonc  cessat  ct  'qysa  lexj  but  your 
bird  might  have  been  taken."  2 

"It  seems  strange  that  tlie  landlord  can  take  tho 
l)ro])erty  of  other  people  to  pay  his  tenant's  debts." 

"  It  does  ;  and  in  many  ])arts  of  this  country  only 
the  goods  of  the  de))tor  can  be  taken,3  and  the 
judges  are  generally  inclined  to  deliver  the  lodger 

iBisset  r.  Caldwell,  1  Esp.  200,  n. 
2^Voodfall,  Landlord  and  Tenant,  0S4. 
8  Parsons  on  Contracts,  vol.  1,  ji.  518. 


CIIAUMS   OP  FTJUNISIIED   APAIlTMrNTS. 


H 


poor 


from  tlio  claws  of  llio  laiidlonl;  an<l  no  it  Iims  licon 
held  that  wliilo  the  goods  of  nu  assigiu-o  of  tlio 
tenant  arc  liahlo,  tlioso  of  a  nicro  inidir-tcnatit  aro 
not  ;i  and  la  England,  of  lato  years,  an  act  lias  liccn 
passed  for  the  protection  of  the  lodger's  goods  from 
the  claims  of  the  landlord  for  rent  due  him  hy  his 
immediate  tenant."^ 

"But  if  our  things  had  been  taken  to  pay  the 
rent,  could  we  not  have  made  the  other  hoarders 
contribulo  their  share?" 

"  No,  I  am  afraid  not,"  ^  I  answered. 

#  #  «  «  # 

Our  intended  rooms  being  now  somewhat  de- 
nuded of  their  necessary  furnishings  we  arranged 
with  our  landlord-about-to-be  to  sen<l  in  all  neces- 
sary articles  within  a  reasonable  time.  Unfortu- 
nately,  however,  this  new  arrangement  was  not  em- 
bodied in  our  written  agreement;  so  I  found  out — 
when  too  late — that  our  landlord  (a  man  of  the  eel 
kind)  was  not  bound  to  put  in  the  furniture.  If  it 
liad  been  in  writing,  it  would  tlien  have  formed  an 
inseparable  part  of  the  contract,  and  the  man 
could  not  have  obtained  his  rent  until  he  had  done 
his  duty.^ 

We  had  scarcely  got  settled  in  our  new  quarters 
before  we  discovered  that  our  rose  possessed  a 
thorn  or  two.     The  morning  after  our  arrival,  we 


1  Archer  v.  Wotherell,  4  Hill  ( X.  Y. )  112. 

2  3-1  and  35  Vict.  chap.  7'J ;  riiillipa  v.  Ilcnson,  L.  11.  3  C 
r.  D.  2G. 

3  Iliiiitcr  V.  Hunt,  1  Com.  T>.  :w' 

^  Mccheleu  r.  Wallace,  7  Ad.  &  E.  40 ;  Vaughan  v.  Han- 
cock, 3  Com.  li.  7GG. 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


// 


^  A 


1.0 


I.I 


1.25 


|50        

.f"       14  0 


25 


2.2 


M 

1.8 


U    IIIIII.6 


V 


<^ 


/; 


^a 


o%    • ;» 


%^.^^' 


Photographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  MS80 

(716)  872-4503 


\ 


,V 


a? 


:\ 


\ 


lV 


^  <.  ^^ 


Wo 


s 


W 


f> 


m  \ 


173 


ciia:;m3  of  furnished  apautments. 


I  I 


M 


were  honored  with  llic  visit  of  a  choleric  gent, 
who  informed  us  that  lie  occupied  tlie  rooms  on 
tlic  flat  below  aiul  that  our  water  jjipes  had  leaked 
through  and  damaged  irreparal^ly  some  of  his 
property.  I  am  thankful,  however,  to  say  that  I 
was  able  to  point  out  to  him  that  the  defects  in  the 
pipe  could  not  have  been  detected  without  exami- 
nation ;  that  as  we  did  not  know  of  them,  and  had 
not  been  guilty  of  any  negligence,  we  were  not 
liable  for  the  damage  which  he  had  unfortunately 
sustained,  there  being  no  obligation  upon  us  to 
keep — at  our  peril — the  water  in  the  pipe.^ 

We  next  had  trouble  about  a  stovepipe  wdiich 
had  to  pass  through  another  person's  room.  When 
wo  began  to  put  it  up  our  neighbor  threatened  to 
take  it  down  and  stop  up  the  hole;  but  knowing 
that  as  there  had  been  a  ])ipe  through  his  room  be- 
fore the  surly  fellow  moved  in  he  only  had  the 
room  subject  to  the  easement  of  the  stovepipe  and 
hole,2  J  remained  firm  and  steadfast,  and  finally  won 
a  way  for  the  obnoxious,  black,  cylindrical  smoke- 
conductor,  and  we  hoped  to  hear  the  kettle  sing 
merrily,  and  the  pots  bubble,  and  si)irt,  and  boil  in 
peace,  if  not  in  quietude. 

But  our  triumph  was  not  for  long.  Barely  was 
the  stove  in  full  blast  when  the  boiler  attached  ex- 
ploded with  a  terrific  uproar.  Considerable  dam- 
age was  done;  my  wife  was  clamorous  that  I  should 
at  once  interview  the  landlord,  especially  as  we 
thought  that  the  accident  could  not  have  haj)pened 

iRoss  V.  Fcdden,  7  Q.  B.  mi. 

2Culverwell  v.  Lockington,  24  C.  P.  (Ont.  Gil. 


CHARM;5   of   furnished   APAIITMENTS. 


17D 


c  gent, 
o?ns  oil 
leaked 
of    Iiis 
that  I 
!  in  the 
exauii- 
»(1  Iiad 
re  not 
nately 
lis   to 

which 
yjien 
ed  to 
)\vini; 
t71  bc- 
-1  the 
)  and 
won 
Loke- 
sing 
'il  in 

was 
ex- 
ani- 
.idd 
Ave 
led 


had  there  been  a  safety-valve  to  the  boiler ;  but  I 
said  that  it  would  be  useless  to  talk  about  it  unless 
we  could  prove  that  he  knew  of  tlie  defect,  or  had 
reason  to  suspect  it,  or  that  damage  was  to  be  ajv 
prehcnded  from  ihe  use  of  the  boiler  lor  the  pur- 
pose for  which  it  was  intended  ;  ^  although  on  one 
occasion  the  courts  held  a  landlord  liable  for  inju- 
ries arising  from  the  explosion  of  gas,  caused  by 
the  i>ipes  in  the  tenant's  room  not  having  beeu 
l)roperly  secure«1.2 

In  the  afternoon  it  began  to  rain  in  the  style 
commonly  called  "  cats  and  dogs,"  or  "  pitchforks," 
and  soon  we  heard  pit — pit — pit,  patter — patter — 
patter,  spit — spit — spit,  spatter — spatter — spatter, 
sounding  nearer  than  the  dripping  outside  would 
seem  to  warrant,  and  on  investigation  we  found 
that  the  rain  was  comiuix  throu'^h  the  roof  and 
dropping  down  in  ugly  si)lashes  upon  one  of  our 
most  handsome  and  costly  volumes. 

"Can  we  make  the  landlord  i)ay  for  the  damage 
done  by  his  old  leaky  roof?"  asked  my  wife,  as 
with  her  best  cambric  handkerchief  she  tried  to 
swab  up  the  wet. 

"  I  fear  me  not.  T  remember  Baron  Martin  say- 
ing that  one  who  takes  a  floor  in  a  house  must  be 
held  to  take  the  i)remises  as  they  are,  and  cannot 
complain  that  the  house  was  not  constructed  dif- 
ferently. This  storm  may  have  blown  off  some 
shingles,  and  then,  even  if  our  landlord  is  bound  to 
use  reasonable  care  in  keeping  the  roof  secure,  he 


f*'; 


1  Jaffe  r.  nartcau,  m  N.  Y.  TOS. 

2  Kiiumell  V.  Burlieud,  2  Daly  (X.  Y.),  155. 


180 


CHARMS   OP  FURNISHED   APARTMENTS. 


I  I 


cannot  be  held  responsible  for  what  no  reasonable 
care  and  vigilance  could  liave  provided  against. 
He  cannot  certainly  bo  considered  guilty  of  negli- 
gence if  he  lias  caused  the  roof  to  bo  examined 
2)eriodically,  and  if  it  was  all  secure  the  last  time  it 
was  looked  at.^  Still,  in  New  York  State  it  was 
decided  that  where  a  landlord,  who  himself  occu- 
l^ied  an  upper  flat,  allowed  liquids  to  leak  through 
into  his  tenants'  rooms,  ho  was  liable/'*' 

"I  should  think,  indeed,  that  a  man  should  keep 
his  house  in  repair,  so  that  his  tenants'  goods  are 
not  ruined,"  indignantly  said  Mrs.  Lawyer. 

"You  may  say  that,  but  the  law  says  quite  the 
reverse.  It  is  perfectly  clear  that  a  landlord  is  not 
bound  to  do  any  repairs,  however  necessary^ they 
may  be,  except  such  as  he  personally  agrees  to  do. 
The  law  will  not  imply  any  contract  of  that  sort  on 
his  part.  That  was  decided  in  a  case  where  largo 
gaps  opened  in  the  main  walls,  and  it  took  several 
hours  ot  hard  ])umi)ing  daily  to  keep  the  water  out 
of  the  basement. 3 

"In  New  Hampshire,  I  admit,  it  has  been  held 
that  where  a  landlord  nrgligently  constructs  liis 
building,  c  r  negligently  allows  it  to  continue  out  of 
rejiair,  he  is  liable  for  injuries  to  his  tenants  ;*  and 
in  New  York  the  rule  is  said  to  be  that  when  build- 
ings are  in  good  repair  when  leased  and  afterward 

1  Carstairs  v.  Taylor,  L.  R.  G  Ex.  223. 

2  Stapcnhurst  r.  Am.  Man.  Co.  15  Abb.  Pr.  X.  S.  355;  Siinon- 
ton  V.  Lorinf?,  (i8  Me.  I(i4. 

3  Ardcii  r.  I'uUcn,  10  Mees.  &  "SV.  321;  Keates  v.  Cadojran, 
10  (^  D.  rm  :  Cottr.  Gaudy, 2  El.  &  I).  845;  Wiltz  v.  Matthews, 
52  N.  Y.  512;  Taffo  r.  Ilarteau,  50  N.  Y.  308. 

<  Scott  V.  Simons,  54  N.  II.  42G. 


CHAlinS  OP  FUllXISHED   ArATlTMCNTS. 


181 


easonablo 
I  ngainst. 

of  ncgli- 
.'xamiiicd 
St  time  it 
e  it  was 
elf  occu- 

tlirougli 

lid  keep 
3otIs  aro 

• 

uito  tho 

•(1  is  not 

iiy^IIicy  ^ 

's  to  do. 

sort  on 

e  large 

several 

Iter  out 

n  held 
cts  his 
out  of 
*  and 
build- 
rward 


Siinon- 

(loo:nn, 
tliows, 


become  ruinous  and  dangerous,  llie  owi  or  is  not 
responsible  unless  he  has  expressly  agreed  to  re- 
pair." ^ 

"  Surely,  then,  one  has  not  to  pay  rent  when  a 
liouse  is  in  such  a  wretchc'd  state?  I  suppose  we 
are  not  bound  to  stay  here." 

"Yes,  to  both  your  queries.  Tho  only  cases  in 
which  a  tenant  has  been  permitted  to  withdraw 
from  his  tenancy  and  refuse  payment  of  rent  are 
where  there  has  been  some  error  or  fraudulent  mis- 
description of  the  premises,  or  where  fhey  have 
been  found  to  bo  uninhabitable  in  consequence  of 
the  wrongful  act  or  default  of  the  landlord  him- 
self ;2  and  it  is  not  perfectly  clear  that  he  can  do 
BO  even  then.^  But  I  must  go  out  for  the  present, 
my  dear.     Fare  tiiee  well." 

In  the  hall  down  stairs  I  met  Mr.  Screwhard,  our 
landlord,  a  gentleman  who,  from  his  personal  ap- 
pearance, would  have  accumulated  a  large  fortune 
as  an  undertaker ;  for  from  his  countenance  you 
could  no  more  have  coaxed  a  smile  than  you  could 
have  out  of  a  looker.  As  I  was  bidding  him  a  hur- 
ried "Good  morning,'*  he  placed  his  body,  so  long, 
so  lean,  and  so  straight  that  you  might  have  taken 
it  for  a  t<degraph  pole  in  consumption,  l>t'fore  me, 
and  said,  in  tones  which  would  have  well  become 
the  ghost  in  Hamlet  — 

"You  must  be  in  by  nine  o'clock,  sir ;  we  lock 
the  front  door  then." 

1  Clancy  v.  Byrne,  5r.  N.  Y.  120. 
2Izou  V.  Gorton,  5  Binj?.  N.  C.  501;  7  Scott,  537. 
8  Surplice  v.  Farns worth,  7  M.  &  Q.  57(3. 
lo. 


102 


CIlAIlUi  OP  FURNISHED   AI'AIITM^NT.^. 


*' Gammon  I "  said  I;  "you  will  liavi'  to  unlock 
it,  then,  to  let  me  in  ;  for  when  you  rented  me  the 
rooms  you  im})liedly  granted  all  that  was  necessary 
for  their  free  use  and  full  enjoyment,  such  as  the  use 
of  the  liall  and.  stairs  whenever  re(|aircd,  and  not 
only  when  you  choose."  ^ 

"  I  will  yield  to  your  wishes  for  this  nii^ht  oidy," 
said  Screwhard,  in  a  voice  as  soU'inn  as  if  lu'  were 
about  to  be  cremated;  "but  mind,  rap  with  your 
knuckles  on  the  door;  in  time  your  wife  will  hear 
and  can  let  you  in,  for  I  must  be  allowed  to  have 
unbroken  slumbers ;  my  health  demands  that  most 
imperatively." 

'•  Stuff  and  nonsense  !  "  I  rei)lied  ;  "  I  have  a 
right  to  use  the  bell  and  the  knocker,  as  nothing 
was  said  to  the  contrary  before  ;  ^  and  I  shall  use 
them." 

And  impatient  with  the  old  fellow  1  passe<l  on, 
saying  to  myself :  "  The  man  must  be  a  fool.  An 
action  will  lie  against  him  if  he  attempts  to  inter- 
fere with  our  use  of  the  ii"cessary  adjuncts  of  liis 
furnished  apartments.  To  be  sure  if  we  were  bad 
tenants,  he  might,  in  mitigation  of  damages,  show 
that  he  acted  so  to  make  us  leave.3  But  we  have 
not  been  long  enough  for  that." 

Apollo  stayed  not  his  iiery  steeds  in  their  down- 
ward career  towards  the  liappy  isles  of  the  west 
that  day,  and  PhoBbus'  sickly-looking  sister  held 
sway  in  high  heaven  wlien  I  agahi  reached  the  door 

1  Maclennan  v.  Royal  Ins.  Co.  39  Q.  B.  (Ont.)  515. 

2  Underwood  v.  Burrows,  7  Car.  &  P.  20. 
8  Idem. 


(JIIAUMl   OF   FURNISHED    APAnTMI^NTS. 


183 


0  unlock 

1  ma  ihu 
ic'cc'ssary 
is  the  use 

and  not 

It  only," 
he  were; 

itii  your 

vill  hoar 
to  have 

lat  most 


have  .'I 
uotiiinur 
liall  use 


<se<l  on, 
oi.  Au 
o  inter- 
s  of  jiis 
L're  bad 
s,  show 
e  have 

down- 
e  west 
r  lield 
le  door 

3. 


of  my  nevr  domicile.  With  mc  was  Tom  Jones, 
who  was  anxious  to  see  the  rooms.  Mrs.  Lawyer 
received  us  in  the  parlor  with  a  face  full  of  disgust, 
and  after  the  interchange  of  a  word  or  two  with 
Tom,  calling  me  aside,  made  the  horrid  announce- 
ment that  our  bedrooms  were  fully  occupied  by  ani- 
mals of  a  small  size,  broad  for  their  length,  darkish 
in  color,  scented,  anthropoi»hagous,  and  designated 
by  the  same  letters  as  very  dark  drawing  j>encils. 

I  di -closed  the  fact  to  T.  J.,  who,  being  somewhat 
of  a  naturalist,  might,  I  thought,  be  able  to  i>rescribc 
some  cure  for  this  new  found  evil.  lie  at  once  ex- 
claimed : 

"  I  tell  you  what,  old  fellow,  some  scientific  folks 
say  that  these  creatures  always  retire  from  public 
life  to  their  own  quarters  about  midnight.  Test  the 
point.  You  tumble  into  bed  at  once,  and  I  will  en- 
deavor to  entertain  Mrs.  Lawyer  until  twelve,  and 
will  call  in  the  morning  to  hear  the  result  of  the 
experiment." 

"You're  very  kind,  I  am  sure.  But  I  am  always 
willing  to  share  things  equally  with  my  wife ;  be- 
sides, when  two  are  in  bed  the  creepers  lose  time 
in  deciding  which  to  bite,  so  one  can  get  occasional 
naps.     To-morrow  we  will  quit,"  I  re[)lied. 

"  But  can  you  give  up  your  lodgings  in  that  sum- 
mary manner  ?  " 

"Lonix  since  it  was  decided  that  where  a  m:m 
rents  ready  furnished  houses  or  lodgings  and  they 
are  infested  by  bugs,  the  tenant  may  leave  without 
paying  rent.     Baron   Parke,  in  giving  judgment 
said  that  the  authorities  appeared  fully  to  warrant 


Jt 


.1  ■ 


i'^ 


f\  I  li 


184 


CnAUMS  OP  lURNISHED   APARTMENTS. 


the  position  tliut  if  the  demised  premises  are  encum- 
bered with  a  nuisance  of  so  serious  a  nature  that  no 
person  can  reasonably  be  expected  to  live  in  them, 
the  tenant  i-;  at  liberty  to  throw  them  up.  And  he 
said  that  this  was  so  because  of  the  imi)lied  condi- 
tion that  the  landlord  undertakes  to  rent  the  jdace 
in  an  habitable  state.  Lord  Abinger,  in  tlie  same 
case,  went  even  further,  and  gave  it  as  his  opinion 
that  no  authorities  were  wanted  to  establish  the 
jioint,  and  that  the  case  was  one  which  common 
sense  alone  enabled  them  to  decide.  A  man,  he  re- 
marked, who  lets  a  ready  furnished  house,  surely 
does  so  under  an  implied  condition,  or  obligation, 
that  the  house  is  in  a  lit  state  to  be  inhabited.  His 
lordship  had  no  doubt  whatever  on  the  subject,  and 
thought  that  tenants  under  such  circumstances  were 
fully  justified  in  leaving."  i 

"But  have  not  other  equally  learned  judges  had 
very  grave  doubts  upon  the  subject  V"  queried 
Jones. 

*'  Well,  I  must  confess  that  later  cases  have 
somewhat  shaken  the  authority  of  the  one  I  have 
been  referring  to,  and  it  has  been  held  that  there  is 
no  implied  warranty  in  a  lease  of  a  house,  or  of 
land,  th  It  it  is  or  shall  be  reasonably  fit  for  habi- 
tation, occupation,  or  cultivation,  and  that  there  is 
no  contract,  still  less  any  condition,  implied  by  law 
on  the  demise  of  real  property  only  that  it  is  fit 
for  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  let."  2 

1  Smith  V.  Marrable,  11  Mees.  &  "W.  5;  Add.  on  Con.  376-6. 

2  Hart  V.  Windsor,  11  Mees.  &  W.  G8  ;  Sutton  v.  TempJo, 
Ibid.  57  ;  Scarlo  v.  Laverick,  Law  R.  9  Q.  B.  131 ;  McGlasliam 
V.  Tallmadge,  37  Barb.  313. 


1 


cnARMS  OP  ruRNisnEn  apaiitment3. 


180 


*'Does  not  that  put  an  extinguisher  on  the  au- 
thority you  cited?"  said  Jones. 

"No;  in  sjmc  of  these  hitter  decisions  the  case 
of  a  ready  furnished  house  is  expressly  distinguished 
upon  the  ground  that  the  letting  of  such  a  liouse  is 
a  contract  of  a  mixed  nature,  being  in  fact  a  bar- 
gain for  a  liouse  and  furniture,  which,  of  necessity, 
must  be  such  as  are  lit  for  the  i)urpose  for  whicii 
they  arc  to  be  used.  Abinger  was  particuhirly 
strong  on  the  point.  lie  said  that  'it*  a  ])arty  con- 
tract for  tlie  lease  of  a  house  ready  furnished,  it  is 
to  be  furni>hed  iu  a  proper  manner,  and  so  as  to  be 
fit  for  immediate  occupation.  Suppose,'  said  he, 
*it  turn  out  that  tliere  is  not  a  bed  in  the  house; 
surely  the  party  is  not  bound  to  occupy  it  or  con- 
tinue iu  it.  So,  also,  iu  the  case  of  a  liouse  infect- 
ed with  vermin ;  if  bugs  be  found  in  the  bed,  even 
after  entering  into  possession,  the  lodger  or  occu- 
pier is  not  bound  to  stay  in  the  house.  Suppose 
again,'  he  continued,  'the  tenant  discover  that 
there  are  not  sufficient  chairs  in  the  liouse,  or  that 
they  are  not  of  a  sort  fit  for  use:  he  may  give 
up  possession.'  ^  And  so  late  as  April  of  the  year 
of  grace  1877,  Lord  C.  B.  Kelly  said  that  he  was 
of  the  opinion,  both  on  authority  and  on  general 
principles  of  law,  that  there  is  an  implied  condition 
that  a  furnished  house  shall  be  iu  a  good  and  ten- 
antablc  state  and  reasonably  fit  for  human  occupa- 
tion from  the  very  day  ou  which  the  tenancy  is 
dated  to  begin,  and  that  where  such  a  house  is  iu 
such  a  condition  that  there  is  either  great  discom- 

1  Hart  V.  Windsor,  tvpra. 


M; 


Vi 


1    ii 


li  )i 


Hill 


I 


i 


180 


CHARM)  OF   FUKNISnED   APARTMEVTS. 


fort  or  (lanc^cr  to  healtli  in  ontcriiiL;  and  dwelling 
in  it,  then  tlic  intending  tenant  is  entitled  to  repu- 
diate the  contract  altogether."  I 

"Well,  that  is  strong,  T  am  sure.'* 

"  Ahinger  held  that  the  letting  of  the  go(»ds  and 
chattels,  as  well  as  the  house,  implies  that  the  i)arty 
who  lets  it  Fo  furnished  is  under  an  ohligation  to 
supply  the  other  contracting  party  with  whatever 
goods  and  chattels  may  be  lit  for  the  use  and  occu- 
pation of  such  a  house  according  to  its  particular 
description  and  suitable  in  every  respe(*t.  And 
Judge  Shaw,  of  Massachusetts,  says  that  in  tho 
case  of  furnished  rooms  in  a  lodging  house,  let  for 
.1  particular  season,  a  warranty  may  be  implied 
that  they  are  suitably  fitted  for  such  use."  ^ 

"  I  should  think,"  said  Jones,  "  that  a  would  bo 
tenant  ought  to  go  and  inspect  the  ])remises  for 
himself." 

"  If  ho  has  an  opportunity  of  doing  so  it  might, 
perhaps,  make  a  difference,  but  if  he  takes  it  upon 
the  faith  of  its  being  properly  furnished,  common 
sense  and  common  justice  concur  in  the  conclusion 
that  the  owner  is  bound  to  let  it  in  an  habitable 
state.     So  saith  the  Lord  Chief  Baron."  3 

"  I  believe  that  it  has  been  held  in  this  country 
that  the  existence  of  a  noxious  smell  in  the  house 
did  not  authorize  the  tenant's  leaving."'^ 

"Indeed.     My  lady,  the  Dowager  Ccmntess  of 

1  Wilson  V.  Finch  Hatton,  L.  R.  2  Ex.  D.  043. 

2  Dutton  V.  Gerrisli,  G3  Mass.  94. 

3  Sutton  V.  Temple,  supra. 

4  Wostlake  v.  De  GraW*25  Wend.  GG9. 


n 


CHARM3   OP  FURNISHED   ArARTMENTS. 


137 


IwoUini; 
to  rcpu- 


(»(ls  aiul 
ic  party 
ation  to 
liatevcr 
id  oecn- 
irticul.'ir 
t.  And 
in  tlio 
',  lot  for 
implied 

rould  bo 
lises  for 

might, 

it  upon 

?ommon 

nclusion 

ibitablo 

country 
e  houso 

ntess  of 


Winclu'lsca,  agreed  to  rent  a  furnislicd  house  in 
Wilton  Crescent,  London,  for  tliree  months  oC 
the  season  of  1H75  for  tlie  sum  of  4.')()  ijjuineas. 
When  her  ladysliip  arrived  with  lier  servants  and 
jK'rsonal  luggage,  she  perceived  an  unjileasant  smell 
in  the  liouse,  and  declining  to  occupy  it,  had  lier 
horses  taken  out  of  the  stahle.  On  investigation, 
it  was  found  that  the  drainage  was  in  a  very  bad 
state,  rendering  the  house  quite  unlit  for  occupa- 
tion. In  three  weeks'  time,  however,  matters  wero 
put  right,  but  her  ladysliip  refused  to  go  back  or 
to  pay  rent.  A  suit  was  brought,  in  which  tho 
whole  court  unanimously  lield  that  the  state  of  tho 
drains  entitled  the  Countess  to  rescind  tlie  bargain 
and  to  refuse  to  pay  rent.^  Abitiger  thought  that 
if  a  tenant,  on  entering  his  lodgings,  found  out  that 
tho  previous  occupier  had  left  because  some  ono 
had  recently  died  in  them  of  the  plague  or  scarlet 
fever,  he  would  not  be  compelled  to  remain.^  And 
in  Massachusetts  it  was  decided  that  a  tenant  who 
caught  small-pox  through  no  fault  of  his  own,  but 
because  the  owner  wilfully  neglected  to  inform 
him  that  the  house  was  infected  with  that  disease, 
might  recover  damages  from  the  Imdlord."  ^ 

Just  then  a  slight  movement  on  the  part  of  Jones 
made  the  chair  on  which  he  was  perched  creak, 
cr.i'^k,  stretch  out  its  legs,  and  let  him  down.  As 
he  was  hastily  apologizing  for  the  damage,  I  re- 
LU:irked ; 


1  Wilson  V.  Finch  Ilatton,  L.  R.  2  Ex.  D.  33(5. 

2  Smith  r.  Marrable,  11  Mees.  &  W.  5. 
8  Minor  v.  Sharon,  112  Mass.  477. 


I 


188 


ClIAllMS   OP  FURNISHED    Al'AKTMENTS. 


"  Don't  troublo  yourself,  the  occupier  of  fur- 
nislied  apartiiK'iits  is  not  responsible  for  deteriora- 
tion l)y  ordinary  wear  or  tear  in  the  reasonable  use 
of  the  goods  of  the  landlord."  ^ 

"I'll  go  now,  at  all  events,  as  I  am  uj),"  said  our 
friend,  as  he  seized  his  liat  and  made  his  adieux. 

Qawrc^  was  that  a  white  handkerchief  i)rotrud- 
ing  slightly  from  his  j)istol  j)oeket?  Indispensables 
arc  tighter  now-a-days  than  they  used  to  bo. 

^  Add.  ou  Contracts,  ;377. 


if 


ClIAPTElJ     XII, 
NOTICE   TO   QUIT,  AND    TUUXIXG    OUT. 

Doubtless  many  an  anxious  housekeeper  Is  Imr- 
ryin«^  rapidly  lliroui^li  the  j)aL^es  of  this  book  to 
discover  whether  or  no  Tom  Jones'  ])iere  of  cntoin. 
ological  information  wascorreet;  but  I  shall  not  en- 
lighten them  on  the  point,  for  this  is  a  work  on  le- 
gal subjects,  and  cannot  be  taken  up  with  recount- 
inix  investiixations  concernim;  the  haliits  of  sucii 
small  tilings  as  insects.  Saith  not  the  ancient 
maxim:  "  Da  minimis  7ion  curat  /t'*c"? 

Wu  had,  however,  other  things  to  think  about 
ere  mornin<''H  li'^ht  acjain  illuminated  the  eastern 
sky.  Scarcely  had  wo  settled  ourselves  for  the 
night  wlk'n  my  wife  started  up,  exclaiming: 

"  Hear  the  lou<l  alarum  bells !  Wiiat  a  tale  of  ter- 
ror their  iurl)ulency  tells !  In  the  startled  ear  of 
night  how  they  scream  out  their  affright  in  a  clam- 
orous appealing  to  the  mercy  of  the  lire — in  a  mad 
expostulation  with  the  dei'f  and  frantic  lire  !  What 
a  tale  their  terror  tells  of  despair !  How  they  clang, 
and  clash,  and  roar !  " 

"Ila!  and  well  for  us  that  their  twanging  and 
their  clanging  have  aroused  us;  for  see!  the  house 
opposite  is  all  wrapi)ed  in  flames,  and  the  wind  is 
driving  right  toward  us  ! " 

Ah!  then  throughout  our  house  there  was  hur- 
rying to  and  fro,  and  gathering  tears,  and   trem- 

C189] 


:'t 


■ 

' 

il 

'■ 


nt  <: 


190 


NOTICE   TO  QUIT,  AND   TURNING   OUT. 


blings  of  distress,  and  cheeks  all  jiale,  '»vlilch,  lint 
ten  minntes  past,  jiressed  the  soft  pillows  with  their 
loveliness;  and  there  were  sndden  snatchings  of 
such  PS  hy  chance  lay  within  reach,  and  leaving 
things  which  ne'er  might  be  regained;  and  there 
was  rnshini^*  in  hot  haste — the  men,  the  chattering 
women,  and  the  pattering  child,  went  pouring  for- 
ward with  impetuous  speed,  and  swiftly  showed  in 
the  back  yard  in  I'obes  do  nuit. 

I  jumped  into  my  pantaloons;  fortunately,  they 
were  not  like  those  of  Monseigneur  d'Artois,  nor 
was  I  as  particular  as  liis  highness;  fuur  tall 
lackeys  had  to  hold  him  up  in  the  air  every  morn- 
ing, that  he  might  fall  into  his  breeches  without 
vestige  of  wrinkle,  and  from  them  the  same  four,  in 
the  same  wav  but  with  more  effort,  had  to  deliver 
liim  at  night.  AVe  found  shelter  in  the  hospitable 
mansion  of  old  Mrs.  Jones.  At  the  expense  of  our 
friends,  we  thatched  ourselves  anew  with  the 
"dead  fleeces  of  sheep,  the  bark  of  vegetables,  the 
entrails  of  worms,  the  hides  of  oxen  or  seals,  the 
felt  of  furred  beasts,  and  walked  down  stairs  mov- 
ing rag  screens,  over-heaped  with  shreds  and  tat- 
ters raked  from  the  charnel-house  of  nature"  to 
partake  of  the  morning  meal. 

At  breakfast,  Mrs.  Lawyer  remarked,  in  anything 
but  lugubrious  tones : 

"  Well,  Mr.  Jones,  we  have  got  rid  of  those 
rooms  without  much  trouble." 

Tom  shook  his  head  ;  so  my  wife  asked : 

"Why  do  you  do  that?" 

"  Because  I  am  not  quite  sure  that  you  arc  yet 


■  'S^i 


NOTICE  TO  QUIT,  AND  TURNING   OUT. 


191 


quit  of  my  friend,  Mr.  Scrcwhanl,  your  landlord," 
was  the  reply. 

"What  do  you  mean?"  queried  my  wife. 

"Ask  your  respected  husband;  lie  knows  more 
about  such  matters  than  I  do." 

In  reply  to  my  wife's  questioning  glance,  I  said: 
*'  I  am  afraid  it  is  rather  too  soon  to  rejoice 
over  the  mutter.  AVe  must  pay  rent  until  \vc  can 
get  rid  of  our  liability  by  a  regular  notice  to 
quit." 

"But  we  can't  occupy  the  place." 

"That  makes  no  difference." ^ 

"Then  you  had  no  provision  in  your  lease  ex- 
empting you  in  case  of  fire,"  remarked  Jones. 

"  Unfortunately,  not." 

"But  why  should  we  pay  when  we  cannot  use 
the  jilace?"  asked  my  wife,  growing  warm. 

"The  rule  is,  my  dear,  th;it  when  the  law  im- 
poses a  duty  upon  one  and  he  is  prevented  per- 
forming it  without  any  fault  on  liis  part,  and  he 
lias  no  one  to  whom  he  mav  look  for  satisfaction, 
the  courts  will  excuse  the  non-performunce ;  but 
when  a  man  volunt.irily  takes  a  duty  or  charge 
ui)oii  himself  he  must  i)erform  his  contract,  come 
what  may,  because  iie  might  have  provided  against 
all  accidents  in  his  ncjreement." 

"And,  you  stupid!  yuu  did  not  have  the  lease 
properly  drawn !" 

"Exnctly  so,  my  female  Solomon,"  I  replied,  in- 
dignantly. 


^Tzon  r.  Gorton,  5  P.ing.  X.  C.  501  ;  7  Scott,  537  ;  Tarker  t'. 
Gibbous,  1  Q.  15.  421  ;  I  owlcr  v.  Payue,  40  Miss.  32. 


i!  % 


192 


NOTICE  TO  QUIT,  AND  TURNING  OUT. 


!l 


•"  Well,  I  must  say,"  said  Mrs.  L.,  "  that  I  fear  I 
am  bound  for  life  to 

"  *  A  wretch  so  empty,  that  if  o'er  there  be 
In  nature  found  the  least  vacuity, 
'Twill  be  in  him.'" 

"Another  reason  is,"  broke  in  Jones,  anxious  to 
throw  oil  upon  the  troubled  waters,  "  that  in  the 
case  of  furnished  lodgings,  as  in  the  case  of  a  house, 
the  rent  is  deemed  to  issue  out  of  the  land  ^ — none 
of  it  out  of  the  furniture  2 — so  that  the  landlord 
can  distrain  for  the  whole  rent;^  an<l  even  were  he 
to  turn  the  tenant  out,  no  apportionment  could  bo 
made  for  the  goods.*  The  law  makes  no  differ- 
ence between  lodujers  and  other  tenants  as  to  the 
payment  of  their  rents,  or  turning  them  out  of  i>os- 
session." 

"  Pray  tell  me,  then,  how  much  notice  must  we 
give?"  demanded  Mrs.  Lawyer  in  tones  which 
would  lead  one  to  imagine  that  she  provided  all  the 
capital  necessary  to  run  the  family  machine. 

Jones  replied  :  '-If  the  hiring  of  the  apartments 
be  from  half  year  to  half  year,  half  a  year's  notice 
to  quit  must  be  given  ;  if  from  quarter  to  quarter, 
a  quarter's  notice;  if  from  month  to  montli,  a 
month's  notice ;  if  from  week  to  week,  a  m  eek's 
notice  ;  and  if  a  lodger  leaves  without  giving  such 

1  Newman  v.  Anderton,  2  Cos.  &  P.  N.  R.  224  ;  Cadogan  v. 
Kenmt,  (Jowp.  4o2. 

2  Ibid. 

8 Newman??.  Anderton.  supra. 

4  Ernot  V.  Cole,  Dyer,  2126;  Cadogan  v.  Kennet,  supra. 
But  see  Salmon  v.  Matthews,  8  Mees.  &>  W.  827. 


NOTICE  TO  QUIT,  AND  TUBXINa  OUT. 


193 


notice  lie  is  liable  for  the  rent  for  a  half  year,  or  a 
quarter,  or  a,  inontli,  or  a  week,  as  the  case  may  be."  1 

*'  Still,"  I  said,  anxious  to  contradict  somebody, 
"it  has  been  ruled  by  a  very  learned  judge  tliat  in 
the  case  of  an  ordinary  weekly  tenancy  a  week's 
notice  to  quit  is  not  implied  as  part  of  the  contract 
unless  there  be  usage  to  that  effect,  but  that  such  a 
tenancy  will  cease  at  the  end  of  the  term  without 
any  notice  ;  in  fact,  he  said  that  ho  was  not  aware 
that  it  had  ever  been  decided  that  in  the  case  of  an 
ordinary  weekly  or  monthly  tenancy  a  month's  or 
week's  notice  to  quit  must  bo  given.  It  is  to  be  re- 
garded as  a  tenancy  for  a  week  or  a  month  rather 
than  as  a  tenancy  from  week  to  week,  or  month  to 
month,  determinable  by  notice.  Were  it  otherwise, 
such  tenancies  would,  in  almost  all  cases,  necessarily 
continue  for  a  double  period,  which  might  be  incon- 
venient to  one  or  both  parties.  Of  course,  even  in 
absence  of  such  usage,  a  weekly  tenant  who  enters 
on  a  fresh  week  may  be  bound  to  continue  until  the 
expiration  of  that  week,  or  pay  the  week's  rcnt.^ 
And  in  New  York  it  has  been  decided  that  in  a 
renting  by  the  month,  or  from  month  to  month,  a 
month's  notice  to  quit  is  not  requisite."  3 

"  But  surely,"  urged  Jones,  "  a  reasonable  notice 
must  be  given  of  the  ending  of  a  weekly  tenancy. 
I  remember  one  case  in  which  my  father  was  con- 
cerned, Earle,  C.  J.,  said  that,  although  it  had  been 


h 


!i 


i  ! 


i Parry  r.  Hazell,  1  Esp.  CA;  Teacock  r.  raiffan,  G  Esp.  4; 
Doe  V.  Bayley,  G  East,  121 ;  AVoodfall,  8  Ed.  17G. 

2IIulTL-li  V.  Armstead,  7  Car.  &  P.  50;  Peacock  r.  R<iffan,  G 
Esn.  4:  Towno  v.  Campbell, ."»  Cotn.  B.  94. 

o'Peuplo  V.  Giolct,  14  Abb.  Pi-   V  S.  130. 
\7, 


104 


NOTICE   TO  QUIT,  AND   TURNING   O^TT. 


laid  down  that  a  weekly  or  a  monthly  holding  does 
not  require  a  week's  or  a  month's  notice  to  deter- 
mine it  unless  there  bo  s  mie  special  agreement  or 
custom,  he  did  not  find  that  f*ny  person  ever  held 
that  the  interest  of  a  tenant  so  holding  miglit  be  put 
an  end  to  witliout  any  notice  at  all.  It  would  be 
most  unreasonable,  he  continued,  if  a  landlord  were 
entitled  to  turn  his  weekly  tenant  out  at  twelve 
o'clock  at  night  on  the  last  day  of  the  Aveek ;  some 
notice  must  be  necessary.  Williams,  J.,  gave  it  as 
his  viesv,  that  whether  it  be  a  tenancy  from  year  to 
year,  or  week  to  week,  in  either  case  there  must  bo 
a  legal  expression  of  intention  that  the  tenancy 
should  cease.  The  inclination  of  his  opinion  was 
that  wliere  the  holding  is  from  week  to  week  a 
week's  notice  sliould  be  given,  and  a  month's  notice 
where  the  tenancy  is  from  month  to  month.  Judge 
Willes,  in  a  half  frightened  sort  of  way,  as  if  he  had 
no  doubt  he  was  wrong,  considered  that  because  in 
a  tenancy  from  year  to  year  half  a  year's  notice  only 
was  required,  therefore  he  could  not  see  how  it  was 
possible  that  a  tenant  from  week  to  week  should  bo 
entitled  to  more  than  half  a  week's  notice.  While 
Byles,  J.,  remarked  that  the  notice  to  a  weekly 
tenant  should  be  a  reasonable  one."  i 

"And  doubtless  he  is  right.    And  if  it  is  nec- 
essary  at  all,  it   must,  of    course,  expire  on    the 

proper  day,  i.  e.,  at  the  end  of  some  week  of  the 
tenancy."  2 

"  Yes ;  and  a  weekly  tenancy  beginning  on  Satur- 


1  Jones  V.  Mills,  10  Com.  B.  K  S.  788. 
SFinlaysou  v.  Bay  ley,  5  Car.  &  P.  G7. 


NOTICE  TO  QUIT,  AND  TUBNINa  OUT. 


195 


"g  (Iocs 
>  detci- 
ncnt  or 
cr  held 
be  put 
>ul(l  bo 
1  were 
twelve 
some 
'0  it  as 
^ear  to 
uist  bo 
3nancy 
•11  was 
'cck  a 
notice 
Judge 
le  had 
use  in 
3  only 
t  was 
lid  bo 
V^hilo 
Eiekly 

nec- 

the 

:  the 

itur- 


day  ends  on  Saturday.!  IIow  would  it  be,  L:iwycr, 
if  the  landlord  rented  the  rooms  to  some  one  else 
before  the  exjnration  of  the  week  ?  " 

"  That  would  amount  to  a  rescission  of  the  bar- 
gain, and  he  could  not  sue  the  defaulting  tenant  for, 
rent  for  the  days  the  apartments  were  empty  ;  2  but 
lighting  or  warming  the  rooms,  or  i)utting  up  Mo 
let '  in  the  window,  will  not  prevent  the  owner 
lookinix  to  the  man  who  has  left  without  jjrivinur  the 
proper  notice."  ^ 

"I  suppose  that  one  cannot  leave  without  notice 
because  he  fears  that  the  landlord's  things  are  likely 
to  be  seized  by  the  landlord  paramount,"  said  Jones. 

"Of  course  you  can  make  an  express  stipulation 
to  that  effect  ;*  otherwise  you  cannot  leave." ^ 

"Well,"  said  my  wife,  "I  presume  that  at  all 
events  the  landlord  will  havo  to  rebuild  if  we  are 
to  continue  paying  rent  " 

"By  no  means.  The  rule  is,  that  a  landlord, 
after  an  injury  by  fire,  is  under  no  obligation  to  re- 
build or  repair  the  house  for  the  benefit  of  the  ten- 
ant," 6  was  my  melancholy  reply. 

Fortunately,  breakfast  does  not  last  as  long  as 
dinner;  so  this  conversation  (which  had  grown  irk- 
some to  myself,  and  has  proved  probably  equally,  if 
not  more  so,  to  my  readers)  was  brought  to  a  con- 
clusion before  very  much  more  w^as  said  on  this 

1  HuflFell  V.  Armistead,  7  Car.  &  P.  5G. 

2  Walls  V.  Atcheson,  3  Bing.  4G2. 

a  Griffith  r.  Hodges,  2  Car.  &  P.  419. 
4  Bethett  t'.  Biencome,  3  M.  &  G.  110. 
6  Ricket  V.  Tullick,  G  Car.  &  P.  GG. 
CDoupe  V.  Genin,  45  N.  Y.  119. 


* 


100 


NOTICE  TO   QUIT,  AXD  TURNING   OUT. 


subject,  and  I  gladly  availed  myself  of  the  oppor- 
tunity of  going  out  on  business. 

Down  town  I  met  my  old  friend,  Dr.  Lane,  wbo 
told  me  of  the  tiff  he  had  just  had  witli  his  land- 
lord.    Some  months  previously  he  had  hired  from 
one  Johnson  certain  rooms  in  a  fashionable  local- 
ity, at  a  rental  of  a  coui)le  of  hundred  dollars  a 
year,  with  the  privilege  of  putting  a  brass  plato 
bearing  his  name  upon  the  front  door.      Shortly 
afterward  Johnson   leased   the  whole  premises  to 
Mr.  Dixon  for  twenty- one  years.      In  course  of 
time,  the  health  of  the  neighborhood  being  excel- 
lent. Lane  got  in  arrear ;   so  Dixon  removed  tho 
brass  plate,  and  refused  to  let  tho  Doctor  have  access 
to  his  rooms  —  in  fact,  finding  them  open  one  day, 
and  the  lodger  out,  he  fastened  the  outer  door,  and 
so  excluded  him  altogether.     Lane  sued  for  dam- 
ages, and  the  jury  kindly  gave  him  £10  for  the 
breaking  and  entry  into  his  room,  expelling  him 
therefrom  and    seizing  his  etceteras,  and  £20  for 
the  removal  of  the  brass  plate.     Dixon,  rather  nat- 
urally, was  dissatisfied  with  the  verdict  of  these 
twelve  men  and  apj^ealed  to  the  court,  who,  how- 
ever, agreed  that  the  jury  were  perfectly  correct  in 
their  view  of  the  matter,  and  that  the  Doctor  might 
keep  his  £30.     The  removal  of  the  plate  was  con- 
sidered a  distinct  and  substantive  trespass.^     Of 
course  the  disciple  of  Galen  was  overjoyed,  and  in- 
sisted ujion  my  taking  a  glass  of  something  alco- 
holic while  he   told  me  of  the  little  trip  that  he 
purposed  taking  at  his  landlord's  expense. 

1  Lane  v.  Dixon,  3  M.  G.  &  S.  77G. 


NOTICE  TO   QUIT,  AND   TUENINO   OUT. 


107 


oppor- 


ic,  who 


After  parting  from  the  worthy  leech  my  brain 
was  rather  puzzled  to  draw  a  distinction  between 
his  case  and  one  decided  some  time  ago,  where  one 
Bloxham,  a  poulterer  and  a  keeper  of  a  beer-shop, 
claiming  a  sum  of  money  to  be  due  to  him  by  a 
lodger — one  Hartley  by  name — locked  up  his  goods 
in  the  room  in  which  Hartley  had  put  them,  pock- 
eted the  key,  and  refused  the  boarder  access  to 
tliem  till  his  bill  was  paid — yet  it  was  decided  that 
what  was  done  was  not  such  a  taking  of  goods  as 
would  sustain  the  action  for  trespass  brought  by 
poor  Hartley.^  At  last  it  dawned  upon  mo  that  in 
the  case  I  was  conning  over  there  had  been  no  act- 
ual taking — the  landlord  never  actually  touched  the 
goods  at  all  —  he  merely  locked  the  door  and  kept 
the  key,  and  therein  it  differed  from  Lane's  suit.^ 

In  another  case,  a  landlord,  before  his  tenant's 
time  was  up,  and  contrary  to  his  wishes,  entered 
his  (the  tenant's)  room  and  removed  therefrom 
books,  maps,  and  papers,  placing  them  wliere  they 
were  damaged  by  the  rain.  The  boarder,  not  lik- 
ing such  treatment,  sued  his  landlord,  and  the  court 
decided  that  the  latter  was  a  trespasser  and  liable 
for  all  damages  sustained,  whether  they  resulted 
from  his  direct  and  immediate  acts,  or  remotely 
from  the  act  of  God.^ 

Before  returning  home  I  called  on  a  friend  wlio 
also  dwelt  in  furnished  ai)artments.  Far  from  se- 
raphic was  the  state  of  mind  in  which  I  found  him. 


II  ii 


1  Hartley  v.  Bloxham,  3  Q.  B.  701. 

2  Lane  v.  Dixon,  supra,  per  Cresswell,  J. 
flNowlan  v.  Never,  2  Sweeny,  (N.  Y.)  G7. 


Ii 


198 


NOTIC::   TO   QUIT,  AND   TTTRNINO   OUT. 


"What  can  be  done  to  stop  that  horrid  noise? 
It  will  drive  rao  mad  !  "  was  Ids  petulant  sahitation. 

I  listened,  and  heard  the  dull,  rumbling  noise  of 
some  -wheeled  machine  being  rolled,  now  fast,  now 
slow,  then  up,  then  down,  in  the  room  above. 

"What  is  it?"  I  asked. 

"Oh,  I  know  what  it  is  only  too  well.  A  foolish 
young  couple  live  up  stairs,  and  their  first  baby  is 
teethinjj  or  something  of  the  sort,  and  whines  and 
howls  incessantly,  so  the  mother  by  day  and  the 
father  by  night  continually  trundle  it  up  and  down 
the  room  in  a  parlor  baby-carriage,  making  such  a 
noise  that  I  can  neither  read  nor  sleep.  It  is  a 
regular  nuisance,  and  I'll  have  it  stopped." 

"  I  suppose  that  they  don't  do  it  merely  to  dis- 
turb and  annoy  you,  but  rather  for  the  good  of  the 
juvenile,"  I  remarked. 

"  As  for  that  matter  I  presume  .  leir  intentions 
are  honorable,  but  that  does  not  make  any  differ- 


'j 


ence. 

"  Yes  it  does ;  the  very  point  has  been  decided 
by  Judge  Van  Hoesen,  of  l^o.w  York.  To  him  a 
Mr.  Pool  applied  for  an  injunction  to  prevent  one 
of  his  fellow-lodgers  wheeling  a  sick  child  about 
the  room." 

"  Well,  what  was  the  result  ?  " 

"  Why,  as  it  did  not  appear  that  the  noise  was 
made  unnecessarily,  but  only  from  the  attempt  to 
soothe  the  infant,  the  court  refused  to  interfere 
with  the  amusement  of  the  child,  saying  that  the 
occupants  of  buildings  where  there  are  other  ten- 
ants cannot  restrain  the  others  from  any  use  they 


NOTICE  TO  QUIT,  AND  TURNING   OUT. 


190 


noise? 
station, 
loise  of 
st,  now 
e. 

foolish 
baby  is 
los  and 
nd  tho 
I  down 
such  a 
It  is  a 

to  dis- 
of  the 

3ntions 
differ- 

ecided 
him  a 
nt  one 
about 


36  was 
ipt  to 
erf ere 
it  the 
r  ten- 
thcy 


may  choose  to  make  of  their  own  apartments,  con- 
sistent with  good  neighborliood  and  with  a  reason- 
able regard  for  the  comfort  of  others." 

"Humph!" 

"  The  judge  added  that  if  the  rocking  of  a  cra- 
dle, the  wheeling  of  a  carriage,  the  wbirling  of  a 
sewing  machine,  or  the  discord  of  ill-played  music, 
disturb  the  inmates  of  an  apartment-house,  no  relief 
by  injunction  can  be  obtained,  unless  the  proof  bo 
clear  that  the  noise  is  unreasonable,  and  made  with- 
out due  regard  to  the  rights  and  comforts  of  other 
occupants.!  And  in  England  it  was  hold  that  tho 
noise  of  a  piano  from  a  neighbor's  house,  or  the 
noise  of  neighbor's  children  in  their  nursery,  are 
noises  we  must  expect,  and  must,  to  a  considerable 
extent,  put  up  with."  2 

"  At  all  events,  no  judge  can  compel  me  to  stay  in 
tlie  house  and  be  annoyed  in  this  way.  I'll  give 
notice  to  quit  at  once." 

#  #  #  #  # 

Here  endeth  the  account  of  our  experiences  in 
the  matter  of  furnished  apartments,  boarding- 
houses,  and  hotels.  After  this  Mrs.  Lawyer  and 
myself  settled  down  quietly  to  housekeeping.  Our 
exj)eriences  in  that  lino  have  nothing  to  do  Avith 
the  subject  of  this  book. 

1  Pool  V.  Illginson,  18  Alb.  L.  J.  82. 
SMellish,  L.  J.  L.  K.  8  Cb.  471. 


'J 


II  ! 


•  f  • 


INDEX. 


Absence  of  guest— loss  of  bafjguge  durin,:,',  n,  '10. 
Accommodation  —  iiinkoopor  need  only  sni)[»ly  rnnsoii- 
ablo,  ]>.  7. 

payincut  for  l)a(l,  \\  1<1. 
Action  against  innkeeper— for  refusing  to  rccoivo  i;uo3t, 
p.  12. 

for  Hiiiiplyiug  bad  food,  p.  14. 
Agreement  to  furnish— p.  177. 
Agreement  with  inr.keeper— a.s  to  board,  pi>.  (Jl,  IGS. 

as  to  rooiu,  p.  (ii. 
Assault— liability  of  inukeopor  for  servant' w  assault,  p.  30. 

protcctiug  guests  iroiu^  pp.  74-124. 

Baggage— what  is,  pp.  74,  8(>-8S. 

articles  of  jewelry,  p.  .S(!. 

innkeeper  liable  for  loss  in  bus,  p.  122. 

aud  during  t(unporary  abs(.'uce  of  guest,  p.  40. 

innkeepers  are  insurers  of,  p.  40. 

need  not  bo  given  to  landlord,  p.  47. 

where  guest  retains  exelusivo  possession,  pp.  51,  52, 

of  ono  stopping  elsewlu^re,  p.  (JO. 
Ball— innkeciper  not  liable  for  loss  of  a  guest  at.  p.  (30. 
Bed— guest  need  not  go  t(»,  p.  40.  ^i*^*--^*^  ^^ , 

damp  bed,  p.  105. 

innkeeper  in  bed,  p.  !•>. 
Betting  and  bets— wlieu  improper,  pp,  G;>-Oj. 

when  bets  recovered,  j).  04. 

all  void,  pp.  05,  00. 

loser  recovering  stakes,  pp.  00,  G7. 
Billiards- pp.  70,  71. 
Bird— liable  to  distress,  p.  170. 
Boarder— annoying  fellow-boarders,  pp.  lOH,  101. 

must  look  after  his  own  goods,  pp.  159,  100. 
Boarding-house— what  is  a,  p.  IGG. 

differs  from  hotel,  p.  107. 

£201] 


FT 


202 


INDEX. 


!l     I 


Boarding-house  keeper— liability  of,  pp.  131,  l.V). 

what  ajuoiint  of  citro  roqiiir(;(l  in,  p.  155. 
licablo  for  gross  neglect,  p.  lOO. 
liability  for  tliuft  by  strangor,  p.  1(»1. 
liability  for  faults  of  servants,  p.  1(55. 
can  cliooso  his  lodgers,  [k  1G7. 


riglit  of  lien,  p.  bi.) 
Breakages  in  hotel— wTHft^^uesris  liablo  for,  p.  101. 

by  boarder,  i>.  188. 
Burglars -p.  107. 


Card-playiug— description  of,  p.  71. 

in  private,  p.  08. 
Carelessness  of  guest— in  elevator,  p.  21. 

when  intoxicated,  p.  58. 

loss  through,  pp.  lOS,  lO:). 

leaving  door  unlocked,  pp.  112-115. 
Carriage— left  outside  inn-yard,  p.  118. 

stolen,  p.  119. 
Cat  distrainable— p.  17(). 
Clothing— innkeeper  need  not  supply,  p.  10. 

innkeeper's  lien  on,  pp.  137-141. 

liablo  to  seizure  for  rent,  pp.  175-17G. 
Commercial  traveler— goods  of,  in  private  room,  pp.  52, 

112. 

Dinner  hours— p.  54. 

Dinner-set— p.  77. 

Distraining  for  rent— furnished  house,  p.  174. 

what  things  liablo  to  distress,  pp.  175, 170. 
Sec  Cat,  Clothing. 
Dog  in  hotel— p.  43. 
Door— left  unlocked  at  iunkeei>cr'8  request,  p.  53. 

not  necessary  to  lock,  pp.  112, 114. 

left  open,  pp.  154,  155. 
Door-bell— lodger  entitled  to  use,  p.  182. 
Door-plate— removing,  p.  190. 

Ejecting  guests— for  bad  manners,  p.  2G. 

for  non-payment,  p.  40. 
Ejecting  tenants— pp.  19G,  197. 
Emigrants— house  for,  an  inn,  p.  20. 
Entomological— pp.  IG.  187. 


^*»v/^/**»*/t^. 


INDEX. 


203 


Explosion  of  stove— p.  \:<x 
Excessive  charges— [jp.  ;;o,  124. 
Expectorating— pp.  20-l'2. 

Fire— liability  of  inukeopor  for  losses  by,  p.  lOi. 
Food-iiiiikoepcr  srlliu.-,'  bad  food,  p.  U. '     ' 

_     boardin!,'-Iiousi)  k<'<'i)i!i-  selliu^^^  bad  food,  p.  1(^5. 
Friend— cautiot,  suo  for  lost  goods,  p.  Tii). 

St'O  VlSITOU. 

Furnished  apartments-coutm.^t  for,  must  bo  in  writiu-T 
p.  171.  **' 

liability  of  landlord  to  repair,  p.  ISO. 

leaving  for  disivpair,  p.  ISI. 

lodger  (Mifitl(;d  to  all  appurtcuanoos,  p.  18J. 

must  bo  fro(5  from  v.Tmiii,  pp.  18;{,  181. 

must  bo  pro[)crly  furnisli<>d,  p.  1S5. 

must  bo  lit  for  imiuudial.)  habitation,  p.  IW. 

notice  to  quit,  pp.  i;)l-i9i. 

noise  of  fullo\v-l(jdgors  iu,  pp.  198,  luy. 

Gaming— forbidden  in  inns,  p.  G3. 
what  is,  p.  (JS. 

lawful  games,  pp.  70,  71. 

unlawful  games,  p.  (JO. 
Goods  and  property -delinition  of,  p.  85. 
Guest— must  bo  a  trav(,'l(;r.  p.  n'.). 

ono  purchasing  refreshment  may  bo  a  guest,  p.  59. 

neighbor  not  a,  p.  14. 

when  able  to  pay  must  always  bo  admitted,  p.  9. 

when  tender  necessary,  pp.  0,  10. 

may  bo  refused  admission  if  improper,  pp.  10,  IJ. 

or  suffering  from  contagious  disease,  p.  10. 

or  if  inn  is  full,  p.  11. 

or  if  ho  is  in  liltliy  state,  p.  11. 

need  not  register  his  name,  p.  13. 

nor  go  to  bed,  p.  ^10. 

nor  take  all  his  meals  at  inn,  p.  GO. 

cannot  carry  on  business  at  inn,  p.  30. 

liability  when  retaining  exclusive  possession  of  troods 
p.  50.  "^       ' ' 

for  breakages,  p.  101. 

no  lien  on.  pp.  137,  138. 


204 


INDEX. 


![     ; 


i'< 


ri 


Horse  of  guest— of  ono  stopping  olscwliere,   pp.  CO,  122, 
12'X 

after  (l('p:irturc  of  fjiicst.  pp.  (i2, 120. 

stolen  fruiii  inn  stable,  p.  12'.>. 

injured  in  inn  stabl<j,  pp.  120,  121. 

injured  in  Held,  p.  122. 

lien  on,  for  keep  of  another,  p.  12S. 

for  its  own  k(^ep,  p.  12'J. 

for  its  (jwner's  keep,  p.  127. 

stolen  horses,  p.  Vo2. 
Hotel— di if ers  not  from  inn,  pp.  2,3. 

derivation  of,  p.  o. 

Amerii;an  and  JOuglish,  pp.  5i-57. 
Seo  Inn. 
Hotel-keepsr— Sec  iNNKEErER. 

Improper  pcr-gons— need  not  be  admitted  into  liotel,  p.  IX 
Inevitable  accident— liability  of  innkeeper  for,  p.  47. 
Infant— lion  on  goods  of,  p.  M'.). 
Inn— derivation  of  word,  p.  1). 

differs  not  from  hotel,  pp.  2,  .'>. 

origin  of,  jip.  .■"',1. 

development  of,  p.  5. 

definition  of,  iip.  IS,  19. 

description  of  eoantry  inn,  pp.  7,  8. 

of  city  inn,  p.  2.'). 

sign  not  essential  to,  p.  5. 
Innkeeper— deiinition  of,  pp.  5,  1'.). 

need  not  let  guest  choose  a  room,  pp.  7,  SD. 

must  receive  all  proper  jxTsons,  pp.  *),  107. 

but  not  those  disorderly,  p.  10. 

or  having  contagious  diseas(%  jx  10. 

or  if  house  bo  full,  p.  10. 

nor  thieves,  nor  policemen,  p.  11. 

sickness  no  excuse  for  refusing  to  receive  guests,  p.  11. 

nor  absence,  p.  11. 

nor  being  in  bed,  ]).  IH. 

but  sickness  of  ser\'ants  is,  p.  12. 

or  infancy,  p.  12. 
Seo  Lien. 

not  bound  to  supply  clothes,  p.  19. 

liable  for  baggage  lost  in  bus,  pp.  22,  02. 

for  assault  of  servants  iipou  guest,  ji.  iiO. 


CO,  122, 


cl,  p.  13. 
.  47. 


is,  p.  11. 


INDEX. 

Inu]3ieepev—Contuuicd. 

for  goods  of  guest  lost  or  stolen,  pp.  4."),  40,  92. 

unless  guest  Avas  negligent,  pp.  4r,,  103. 

arc  insurers  of  guest's  in'operty.  ])p.  40,  103. 

in  Avluiti'vur  jiart  of  hotel,  pp.  47,  4S,  O'J,  111. 

cannot  make  guest  take  eliarg(\  p.  4S. 

when  his  liability  ceases,  pp.  Ol-O;'.. 

liability  for  gu(.'st's  money,  p.  1)0. 

for  loss  by  lire,  p.  10;). 

for  acts  of  niiee,  p.  104. 

for  loss  by  burglars,  p.  107. 

for  horses  and  carriages,  pp.  11,S-124, 

goods  out.side  inn,  p.  118. 

lien  on  horses,  pp.  12S-i;5;?. 
Intoxication— loss  of  goods  by  guest,  p.  58. 

innkeeper  drunk  in  bed,  p.  GO. 

Laundrecs— liability  of  innkeeper  to,  p.  20. 

Lawyer's  dinners— p.  ,34. 

Leakage  of  roof— p.  ISO. 

Liability  of  innkeeper— when  it  coasos,  pp.  01,  02. 

limitation  of,  p.  80. 

statutory  limitati(ni— p.  81. 

construed  strictly,  pp.  82,  83. 

not  api)licablo  to  horses,  p.  120. 
Livery-stable  keeper— lien  of,  pp.  134,  135. 
Locking  dooi-- pp.  Ji2, 114. 
Lien— right  of,  cannot  bo  sold,  pp.  131,  148. 

on  goods  of  third  parties,  i)p.  132.  140,  150. 

special  agreement  as  to  payment,  p.  i;U. 

of  livery-stablo  keeper,  p.  1.34. 

for  improving  horse,  p.  135. 

none  on  jierson  of  guest,  pp.  137,  138. 

nor  on  clothing,  pp.  137-140. 

why  innkeepers  have  a,  p.  144. 

only  on  goods  of  guests,  pp.  145,  14(i 

when  it  ceases,  p.  147. 

no  limit  to  amount  of,  p.  148. 
.    boarding-house  keepers,  ji.  IGO. 
See  IIonsKs. 

Manners  at  table— pp.  2G,  27... 
Matches— taking,  p.  102. 
18. 


205 


20G 


INDEX. 


Misstatements  as  to  hotels— p.  23. 
Money— guest  depositing  in  safe,  p.  84. 

liability  of  landlord  for,  pp.  UO,  91,  93. 

when  entrusted  to  third  party,  i^.  96. 
Mosquitoes~p.  74. 

Necessaries  of  a  wife— pp.  32,  33. 
Neighbor— cannot  bo  a  guest,  pp.  14,  GO. 

unless  traveling,  pp.  14,  59. 
Noise  of  boarders— pp.  120, 121,  198, 199. 
Notice  to  quit— pp.  191, 194. 

Parties  dining  together— p.  28. 

Prize  candy— p.  71. 

Pullman  car— not  a  common  inn,  pp.  70,  77. 

Rats  and  mice— depredations  of,  pp.  104,  105. 
Refreshment  bar— not  an  inn,  p.  35. 
Register— guest  need  not  enter  name  in,  p.  13. 
Repairs— liability  of  landlord  for,  pp.  180, 181. 

after  a  lire,  p.  195. 
Restaurant— not  an  inn,  p.  35. 

Robbery— liability  of  host  for  loss  of  guest's  goods,  pp.  45, 
9-»,  94. 

by  guest— pp.  53,  110. 
Room—landlord  to  choose,  pp.  7,  39. 

trespassing  on  guest's,  p.  73. 

Safe — depositing  in,  p.  79. 

See  Valuahles. 
Shaving— when  barber  liable  for  accidents,  p.  9«J. 
Singing— of  fellow-boarders,  pp.  120,  121. 
Sleeping-car   owners — neither  innkeepers   nor  common 

carriers,  pp.  7G,  77. 
Smells— effect  on  tenants'  rights  of  noxious,  pp.  18G,  187. 
Stables— not  a  necessary  for  an  inn,  p.  19.  ^-o-^^  S'f> 

landlord's  liability  for  bad,  pp.  120,  VM. 
Stove-pipe— passing  through  room,  p.  178. 
Sunday  travelers— must  bo  admitted  by  innkeeper,  p.  13. 

Tavern  an  inn— p.  3G. 

Tender  of  payment— by  guest,  pp.  9, 10. 

Traveler— who  is  a,  p.  59. 


INDEX. 


207 


Valuables— wlien  need  bo  deposited  in  safe,  p.  48. 
notice  of  rule  as  to  deposit  of,  pp.  49,  50.  79. 
personal  jewelry,  p.  79. 
when  to  bo  deposited,  pp.  84,  9G. 

Watch— as  to  depositing  in  safe,  pp.  79,  80,  83,  85. 
>Vatering-place— hotel  at,  p.  108. 
Water-pipes— leakage  of,  p.  178. 


